사해행위취소 등
1. The sales contract concluded on March 22, 2016 between the Defendant and C on March 22, 2016, with respect to the area of 185 square meters in Pyeongtaek-gun, Jeonnam-gun.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. On July 18, 2013, C entered into a sales contract between the Plaintiff (former name: E) and the Plaintiff for selling KRW 45,00,00 with respect to No. 24 and 204 (hereinafter “instant No. 204”) of the Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, with the purchase price of KRW 45,00,00. On July 19, 2013, C completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff on June 3, 2014, and revoked the said registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name.
B. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages following the rescission of the above sales contract agreement with the Gwangju District Court 2015da82084, and sentenced that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 10,358,529 won and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from August 11, 2013 to December 1, 2015 and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized on November 19, 2016.
C. On the other hand, on March 22, 2016, C entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, the sole property of which is 185 square meters (hereinafter “instant real property”), which is the only property between the Defendant, who is his/her husband and wife, to sell the sales amount of KRW 2,50,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on March 25, 2016 as the receipt of the Seo-gu District Court Port Office’s receipt of KRW 3383.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 2, 4, and 5 [Defendant's assertion that Gap's evidence Nos. 5 (a real estate sales contract termination agreement) was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it], Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 4
2. The assertion and judgment
A. It constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that the debtor in excess of his/her obligation to constitute a fraudulent act sells real estate to a third party, which is the only property and completed the registration of ownership transfer to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da62036 delivered on March 25, 2003, etc.).