(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.04.02 2013가단18839

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.04.02 2013가단18839

사해행위취소 등

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. (Before July 1, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 400,000,000 to Non-Party C (hereinafter “the deceased”) on July 1, 201, the Plaintiff issued ten copies of the cashier’s checks of KRW 350,000 at face value, KRW 5,000 at face value, KRW 5,000 at face value, KRW 8,000 at face value, KRW 1,000 at face value, and KRW 10 at face value.

B. (Fraud’s Fraudulent Act) On August 26, 2013, the Deceased entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the only real estate for which the Defendant is the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and on August 28, 2013, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate to the Defendant.

C. (C. (C. Defendant’s Bad Faith and Cancellation of Donation Contract) The Defendant’s donation of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, the only real estate of which the deceased was liable to the Plaintiff, constitutes a fraudulent act. Since the Defendant, who was his father in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased, was well aware of this fact, the said donation contract should be revoked by fraudulent act. The Defendant must implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration for each of the instant real estate to the deceased.

2. We examine the existence of the preserved claim first.

The evidence No. 1 (the tea certificate) cannot be used as evidence because there is no other evidence to prove the authenticity, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the deceased borrowed KRW 400,00,000 from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of fraudulent act is without merit, since the plaintiff's claim for revocation of fraudulent act against the deceased is not recognized.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.06.29 2015나6323

-대구지방법원 2018.01.18 2016가합1940

-대구고등법원 2018.10.17 2018나20997

-대구지방법원 2020.08.21 2017가합209925

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.30 2017가합520531