beta
Text
1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. A sales contract concluded on June 5, 2019 between the Defendant and D is concluded.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From October 16, 2009 to April 29, 2019, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 608,100,000 to D several times (hereinafter “instant loan”); D as of July 15, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 606,848,878 to the Plaintiff (the E Association’s guarantee amount is KRW 507,271,546; the principal excluding the amount is KRW 3,08,08,081, total interest amount is KRW 102,585,413).
C. D’s act of disposing of property and property status D sold each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant as KRW 120 million on June 5, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name on July 25, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) on the following grounds: (a) not only the Plaintiff but also the Plaintiff was liable to pay a large amount of debt to the lessee on the part of F Co., Ltd., Gyeongnam Credit Guarantee Foundation, G Union, and name-free; (b) while each real estate listed in the separate sheet but also owns active property equivalent to KRW 3.69 tons of fishing vessel and KRW 145,00,000 in the name of “H”); (c) each of the real estate listed in
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute or significant fact in this Court, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 23 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, D entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant on June 5, 2019 and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which led to the reduction of active property and deepening the shortage of joint security for general creditors, and D entered into the instant sales contract with the knowledge that the joint security of creditors would be reduced due to the instant sales contract and would prejudice the general creditors including the Plaintiff. Accordingly, D is presumed to have been a beneficiary’s bad faith. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant is presumed to have been a beneficiary.