사해행위취소
1. It was concluded on November 30, 2012 between the defendant and the non-party B as to the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 7, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 18 million to Nonparty B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party B”) at the interest rate of KRW 29.9% per annum; and (b) at the interest rate of KRW 38.9% per annum (hereinafter “the instant monetary loan agreement”); and (c) on January 25, 2013, the Nonparty bears the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, based on the instant monetary loan agreement, including the principal amount of KRW 16,360,755, interest amount of KRW 1,206,258, and KRW 17,638,585.
B. On November 30, 2012, the Nonparty and the Defendant entered into a sales business operator’s transaction transfer contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the ownership of a motor vehicle owned by himself/herself (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) transferred to the Defendant on November 30, 2012. On November 30, 2012, the Nonparty and the Nonparty entered into the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership under Article 02151 of the receipt of the instant contract with the Defendant.
C. At the time of the Nonparty’s property legal act, the instant automobile was owned as active property owned by the Nonparty at the time of entering into the instant transaction transfer contract.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, result of tax information inquiry into the South and North coast of this court, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was created prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim is established in the near future in the near future, and in a case where a claim has been created by realizing the probability in the near future, the claim may also be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da21245, Jul. 15, 2010). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the aforementioned facts are examined.