logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2020.11.03 2020가단105107
사해행위취소
Text

1. The contract of donation concluded on April 11, 2017 between the defendant and D with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff provided credit loans with the credit limit amount of KRW 5 million to D on January 7, 2015, and the period of each year was extended on January 7, 2019.

From the next day, the credit loans in this case remain as principal amounting to KRW 4,970,407 and damages for delay amounting to KRW 937,288.

B. D’s disposal of property, on April 11, 2017, donated each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property list, to the Defendant living together, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as described in Paragraph 2 of the Disposition on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the judgment, and changing it into money easily for consumption or transferring it to another person free of charge, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). D donated each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property of the defendant living together with the defendant under the status of bearing the credit loan obligation against the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da41875, Apr. 24, 200). This constitutes a fraudulent act and thus, it shall be revoked. The defendant

The defendant asserts that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate established on each of the above real estate should not be cancelled in order to secure that the plaintiff has been fully repaid other loans against D, and that D would be able to repay the credit loans of this case to the plaintiff, but this cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaintiff's claim.

3. For this reason, we accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

arrow