beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant married with B, and divorced around May 2015.
B. B obtained a loan of KRW 147,00,000 from the Plaintiff on May 11, 2016; (b) lost the benefit of October 20, 2016; and (c) on October 21, 2016, the balance of the principal and interest of loans as of October 21, 2016 is KRW 146,231,539.
C. B, August 11, 2016, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the gift agreement concluded on the same day with respect to the instant real estate, which is the only property of the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion B did not change the registered domicile even after the Defendant was divorced, and the repayment of the loan was suspended at the time of conclusion of the instant gift contract.
In light of the above circumstances, B was divorced from the defendant, and the gift contract of this case constitutes fraudulent act.
B. The defendant's argument that the real estate of this case was transferred from B under the pretext of child support, consolation money, etc.
3. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;
A. Division of property according to divorce by relevant legal principles is a system that has the economic difficulty of supporting the other party in the economic aspect of the liquidation of joint property achieved through mutual cooperation between the other party during marriage. Even if a debtor with excessive debt is divorced and transfers a certain property to his/her spouse to a division of property, the division of property is not subject to revocation by a creditor as a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances that deem that such division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act. However, it is not subject to revocation by a creditor as it cannot be deemed a legitimate division of property regarding excessive portion beyond a considerable degree. However, it is considerable.