beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the cause of the claim or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence evidence and the pleading as to Gap 1, 2, 3, and 7, Eul entered into a gift agreement with the defendant on February 14, 2014 with respect to one-half equity (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on February 18, 2014, and D Co., Ltd extended a total of KRW 38,925,200 to Eul on August 3, 2015, and the plaintiff acquired the above loan claim against D from D on May 20, 2016.
The Plaintiff asserts that the gift agreement entered into with the Defendant on February 14, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate is a fraudulent act under the status that C bears the above loan obligation in D.
In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation needs to be created prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In the near future, where a claim has been created as a result of its realization in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da40955 Decided November 12, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da21245 Decided July 15, 2010, etc.). D’s loan claims against D with respect to the instant real estate occurred after February 14, 2014 under the gift contract concluded between C and the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate, there is no evidence to deem that the said loan claims meet the requirements for the obligee’s right of revocation to be the preserved claim.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan against C cannot be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation. Therefore, the establishment of the preserved claim is established.