(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.16 2014나8027

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.16 2014나8027

사해행위취소

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant B that orders cancellation and performance following the judgment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The court's reasoning for this part of the basic fact is as follows: ① 5 of the first instance court's ruling "from the new bank to the new bank to "from the new bank to the new bank to the third 5 of the judgment; ② 3 8 of the third 8 of the judgment; ③ " December 12, 2013" of the third 3 12 of the judgment to " December 12, 2012; ③ "the new bank to the new bank to the new bank to the new bank to the new bank to the third 3 4 5 or 6 of the 4th 13th 4th 13th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th "the result of inquiry about the head of the court to the head of the Seongbuk-gu Office to the head of the court to the head of the High 14th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 3th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th .".

2. Determination as to the establishment of the right to revoke the fraudulent act

A. (i) The existence of the preserved claim(s) protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should, in principle, be derived before the obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which has already been based on the establishment of the claim, has already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claim would have been created in the near future, and in the near future, the claim may also become the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da43352 Decided April 12, 2002, etc.). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff was subrogated for the amount of KRW 9,436,503 pursuant to the first and second guarantees (i.e., total amount of unpaid subrogated amount of KRW 9,169,963,963) and the legal procedure cost of unpaid subrogated amount of KRW 9,169,963,540, whichever is the date of subrogation for the unpaid subrogated amount of KRW 9,169,963.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2002. 4. 12. 선고 2000다43352 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나39322

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.30 2018나18473

-인천지방법원 2015.10.21 2015가단214607

-대구고등법원 2014.12.10 2013나21414

-수원지방법원 2016.10.28 2016나60690