logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.05 2017재머42
사해행위취소
Text

1. Revocation of the decision subject to quasi-examination;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be incidental to participation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 2009, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor entered into a credit guarantee agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on April 13, 2010 with a guarantee amount of KRW 50,00,000, and the guarantee period of KRW 13,000 (hereinafter “the first guarantee agreement”) and C extended KRW 50,00,000 from D Bank as security on April 17, 2009. (B) On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor entered into a credit guarantee agreement with C on May 21, 2015 with the guarantee amount of KRW 85,00,000,000, and the guarantee period of KRW 20,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the principal and guarantee period of KRW 2,000,000,000,000).

C. Under the first and second guarantee agreements, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation owed by C to the Intervenor assisting the Plaintiff.

C A credit guarantee accident occurred because it was impossible for the Plaintiff to repay its loan obligations. On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor subrogated 7,014,021 won of the principal and interest of loan to the D Bank according to the first guarantee agreement and the second guarantee agreement.

E. On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendant on April 7, 2016.

F. On February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserted that, on April 6, 2016, a gift agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant real estate with the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff as a preserved claim, was a fraudulent act detrimental to the Intervenor’s Intervenor. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said gift agreement and performance of compensation for value, as the court’s order 2017da502905, and the said lawsuit was brought before this court for adjustment to the instant court.

(g) A case subject to quasi-examination (hereinafter “the case subject to quasi-examination”). The Plaintiff.

arrow