logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.01.28 2015나42206
사해행위취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal of Chapters 4, 15, and 6, and 12 among the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

B. The debtor's act of providing real estate, the only property of which is the debtor's own property, as collateral for the creditor, becomes a fraudulent act subject to the creditor's right of revocation in relation to other creditors, barring any special circumstances. In a case where the debtor's act of offering collateral to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act objectively, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). Thus, it is examined whether B had already been in excess of the debt at the time of the contract of collateral security in this case.

1) Preliminary property: The appraised value calculated in accordance with the due process for real estate held in the instant case at KRW 84,420,000 may be deemed to reflect the market price, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001). Thus, the appraised value calculated in accordance with the due process is deemed to be the market price of active property at the market price of the instant real estate at the auction following the decision to commence compulsory auction by the court: 2) The total sum of passive property at the auction following the decision to commence auction by the court: 316,60,109,838 won for the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff at KRW 129,159,838 after the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract; however, as seen earlier, the Industrial Bank of Korea’s claim against the Plaintiff at KRW 129,159,838 after the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract.

arrow