beta
Text
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. It was concluded on June 13, 2013 between the Defendant and C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 23, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 on the same day to C as of May 30, 2009. However, as security, the Plaintiff offered as security a right to collect the village in the branch line of the former South-Namnam-gun D fishing Village fraternity owned by C, as security. If C delays the payment of principal and interest, it would lose the benefit of the time limit and make up a notarial deed under a money loan contract for transfer security (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that C has no objection even if it was immediately subject to compulsory execution.
B. On June 13, 2013, C entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, who is one’s mother, on the attached list owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the attached list, which was owned by C, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate”) to the Defendant on June 14, 2013 as the receipt of the Bapo District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office (hereinafter “instant establishment”).
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal
2. Determination:
A. The act of a debtor in excess of the debt for determination as to the cause of the claim, providing real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors as a claim security constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, unless there are special circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da10864 delivered on September 9, 1997, etc.). As seen earlier, C concluded a mortgage contract of this case with the Defendant, one’s mother, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage of this case on the real estate of this case to the Defendant. Thus, barring any special circumstance, C constitutes a fraudulent act by deepening the lack of common security of general creditors including the Plaintiff, and C is a fraudulent act.