(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.04.24 2019나64610

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.04.24 2019나64610

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 defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are the same purport as the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance was

Therefore, the reasoning of this court shall be as follows: ① “The entry of No. 1-A of the order” in Part 17 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance into “written claim”; ② “The sales contract No. 412 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed “No. 1”; “this court” in Part 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed “the court of first instance”; “this court” in Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed “this court from the court of first instance”; “No. 7 of Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed “No. 2020, Jun. 21, 2019,” and “No. 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “the date on which the arguments of first instance are closed”; “No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “the date on which the arguments of this case are closed”; and “No. 83 of the judgment of first instance” shall be deemed to be attached.

2. Parts to be dried;

C. The establishment of a fraudulent act, the intention of the debtor's intentional act, and the act of changing the beneficiary's malicious debtor's selling of real estate, which is only his/her own property, into money which can be consumed, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the debtor's intent to harm is presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser did not

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). Each entry in the evidence Nos. 4 through 6 is different.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2001. 4. 24. 선고 2000다41875 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.08.14 2018나101701

-제주지방법원 2021.02.02 2020나11803

-서울고등법원 2019.01.11 2018나2017356

-대전고등법원 2019.08.21 2019누10458

-대전지방법원 2020.09.11 2019나121368