beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. In accordance with B’s request for guarantee, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a credit guarantee agreement for the repayment of the principal and interest of loan to be borne by B by receiving a loan from a corporate bank; (b) obtained a loan from a corporate bank as collateral; and (c) on March 29, 2006, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 24,810,712 to a corporate bank according to the credit guarantee accident of B; (d) filed an application for payment order against B (Seoul Western District Court 2008Da8163) with the above court; and (e) filed an application for payment order again for the interruption of extinctive prescription (Seoul Western District Court 2018Da14808) for the payment order (Seoul Western District Court 2018Da14808); and (b) from the above court, “B was paid to the Plaintiff at a rate of 26,439,315 won and 24,746,802 won from the date of the annual payment order until March 29, 2006.
B. On March 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E ApartmentF (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) based on the sales contract concluded on February 26, 2014; (c) in light of Defendant A’s importation, etc., it is suspected that the source of funds to purchase the said real estate was generated; and (d) B donated the purchase fund of the said real estate to the Defendant from February 26, 2014 to March 15, 2017 under the insolvency of debt excess.
C. The act of entering into a donation contract under the condition that B, a debtor, was in excess of his/her obligation and donated the above purchase fund constitutes a fraudulent act.
Therefore, the above donation contract should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the amount of money donated within the scope of the claim for reimbursement as compensation for value.
2. The obligor’s legal act, etc. is alleged to be a fraudulent act and the revocation thereof.