beta
Text
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. On January 25, 2016, between the Defendant and B.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6:
On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on September 14, 2012 against the Busan District Court 2012Gahap44061 (hereinafter “instant claim”). On January 13, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment that “B jointly with C and D and jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 107,580,00 (hereinafter “instant judgment”) and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from April 28, 2012 to January 13, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”
B. On January 25, 2016, B made a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, B concluded a mortgage agreement with the maximum debt amount of KRW 90,000,000 (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant, and completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage creation”) with the Suwon District Court No. 9194 on the same day.
C. B’s financial status was the only property of the instant real estate at the time of establishing the instant mortgage contract, and B was in excess of the obligation exceeding the positive property.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition of the existence of the preserved claim, B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 107,580,000 of the judgment of this case and the delay damages therefor. Since the Plaintiff’s claim against B was incurred prior to the instant mortgage contract, it is the preserved claim by the obligee’s right of revocation. (2) The obligor is the only property of which the obligor is not in excess of his/her obligation already constituted a fraudulent act.