beta
Text
1. As to motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet:
A. The mortgage creation contract concluded on September 23, 2015 between the Defendant and C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 1.860,00 to C, and at the time, C agreed to pay in installments each five day from November 29, 2016 to January 27, 2017.
B. On September 23, 2015, C concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant regarding automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”) and completed the registration of the establishment of mortgage as indicated in the order under the name of the Defendant on the same day.
C. C had no particular property other than the instant vehicle at the time of the registration of the establishment of mortgage of the instant vehicle, and the attachment registration was completed on the instant vehicle on the grounds of the delinquency in health insurance premiums.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the court's order to submit taxation information at the time of mining concession, the result of response to the submission of taxation information, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s loan claim against C prior to the existence of the preserved claim is the preserved claim seeking the revocation of the mortgage agreement of this case.
B. Unless there are other special circumstances, the act of a debtor's act of providing one of his/her sole assets to one of the obligees as collateral is subject to creditor's right of revocation in relation to other obligees, and in cases where the debtor's act of offering security to a third party constitutes an objective fraudulent act, it is presumed that the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed to have been committed at the time of the juristic act, so unless the beneficiary proves that he/she was bona fide at the time of the juristic act, the creditor may cancel the juristic act and claim restitution for its original status accordingly.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006, etc.). C offered the instant motor vehicle as security to the Defendant, one of the creditors, who is the obligee of the instant motor vehicle, and thus, the instant mortgage contract between C and the Defendant.