beta
Text
1. As to real estate listed in Appendix 1:
A. A sales contract concluded on June 5, 2017 between Defendant B and D is concluded.
Reasons
1. On December 30, 2016, D drafted a letter of performance stating that “The Plaintiff shall notify the Plaintiff of the remainder date at the time of trading to a third party, and promise that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 50,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, at the time of trading to a third party, of the remainder date at around January 2017.”
D around February 2, 2017, the above Gyeong-gun E and 6 lots of land, and the above 550,000,000 won were sold to a third party, and repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 250,00,000 among the above 550,00,000.
On the other hand, on June 5, 2017, D entered into a sales contract with Defendant B as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is its sole property (hereinafter “instant first sales contract”), and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1-B, and entered into a sales contract with Defendant C (hereinafter “instant second sales contract”) with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in the Disposition No. 2-B.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, fact inquiry results about the time of the application by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff held D’s claim amounting to KRW 300,000,000 on the basis of the performance certificate as above, and thus, the above claim can be a preserved claim.
In addition, since the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and changing it into money easily for consumption, is always deemed a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances, the debtor's intent of prejudice is presumed, and the burden of proving that the purchaser did not maliciously exist is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420, Apr. 14, 1998), the first and second sales contracts of this case in which D sold each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, which is the only real estate, to the defendants.