사해행위취소
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant supplementary intervenor.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. The reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.
With respect to the instant real estate owned by F, the provisional attachment registration in the name of the Plaintiffs was completed on May 11, 2010, and on November 14, 2011, the registration of the creation of the instant collateral security in the name of the Intervenor assisting the Defendant was completed, and on January 12, 2012, the provisional attachment registration in the name of G and 37 persons was completed.
On the other hand, on February 15, 2012 regarding the instant right to collateral security, the registration of transfer of the instant right to collateral security was completed against the Defendant on the ground of transfer of contract.
B. On March 21, 2012, the Defendant filed a request for auction to Seoul Southern District Court E with respect to the instant real estate based on the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”); and the Plaintiffs also filed a request for auction to the Seoul Southern District Court H on the instant real estate and rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on March 22, 2012.
C. In the instant auction procedure, the auction court opened a date of distribution on March 5, 2013, and prepared the instant distribution schedule to the Defendant, who is the person holding the provisional seizure right and the person holding the right to demand a distribution, to the Plaintiff A, 7,338,080 won, 21,979,218 won, and 426,105,731 won, respectively, to the Defendant, who is the applicant creditor and the person holding the right to demand a distribution.
G and 37 persons, who completed the registration of provisional seizure after the establishment of the instant right to collateral security, did not receive any distribution in the auction procedure of the instant case.
2. Based on the above factual basis, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant’s Intervenor’s transfer of the instant collateral security and its secured debt to the Defendant was null and void by means of false conspiracy, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and the Defendant is not a legitimate right holder regarding the instant collateral security, etc.