beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 7, 2011, the Plaintiff leased KRW 100 million to Dong students D as of April 6, 201, and C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations.
B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is owned C. On May 10, 2012, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”) was completed as of May 10, 2012, under the receipt of No. 45170 on May 10, 2012, based on the trade reservation.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5
2. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the pre-sale agreement entered into between C and the Defendant regarding each of the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, and sought the revocation thereof and restitution therefrom, the Defendant asserted that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff became aware of the existence of the pre-sale agreement and provisional registration on April 28, 2014, which was the date of application for voluntary auction from November 11, 2013 to the date of establishment of the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security regarding each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit filed on June 24, 2015, which was one year after the lapse of the said period, is unlawful.
B. In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for the revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he would prejudice the creditor, so it is not sufficient that the debtor merely knows that he/she conducted a disposal of the property, and that such a juristic act constitutes an act detrimental to the creditor, i.e., that it is impossible for the creditor to fully satisfy the claim due to the deficiency in the joint security of the claim or the lack of the joint security already in the situation.