beta
Text
1. It was concluded on July 27, 2012 with respect to one-half shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers).
The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of issuing and managing credit cards.
B. B, while having been issued with a credit card from the Plaintiff on November 15, 201, began with delay in repayment of the credit card use price from around November 15, 201. By September 10, 2015, B was liable to pay the credit card use price amounting to KRW 8,118,712 in total of the principal amounting to KRW 3,130,64 and delay damages amounting to KRW 4,984,548, and costing to KRW 3,500.
C. The real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was jointly owned by B and the Defendant, his spouse, and B entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant on July 27, 2012 with respect to his share of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”). On the same day, the Seoul Western District Court completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of Pyeongtaek Branch No. 42775.
At the time of the donation contract of this case, B, in addition to the Plaintiff’s credit card use-price obligation, had a large number of debts, such as tax liability on Mapo Tax, and obligation on Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. for loans. On the other hand, active property was the only property of 1/2 shares out of the real estate of this case, the market price of which is equivalent to 260,000,000 won.
E. Of the instant real estate, B’s share was established with the maximum debt amount of KRW 15,00,000, but was cancelled due to termination on August 9, 2012.
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts of the revocation of the fraudulent act, the Plaintiff’s credit card use-price claim against B becomes a preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation, and the Defendant, who is the spouse, is the only property under the condition that B bears a large number of obligations including the above credit card use-price obligation against the Plaintiff.