beta
Text
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. It was concluded on May 9, 2013 between Defendant A and C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 6, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 267,254,00 to C as of July 6, 2013, upon the due date, C did not pay interest on the loan from July 6, 2013, and on July 6, 2013, C did not repay the loan on the due date.
B. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Da343142, and was sentenced to “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of 14.51% per annum from December 19, 2013 to the date of complete repayment with respect to KRW 287,10,602 and KRW 267,254,000 among them.”
C. On May 9, 2013, C entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant A with a maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000 regarding the instant real estate (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”), and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage near the same day.
Defendant B and C filed a marriage report on February 13, 1981. The Busan Family Court confirmed the divorce intention on August 19, 2013, and reported the divorce on September 25, 2013.
E. C entered into a donation contract with Defendant B, the wife, on August 21, 2013, with respect to the instant real estate, and “the instant donation contract” (hereinafter referred to as “instant donation contract”).
Based on this, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the 23th of the same month. On the other hand, C was in excess of obligations at the time of the above contract to establish a collateral security or the donation contract. [Grounds for recognition] The facts of absence of dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including those with serial numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A
A. Since the Plaintiff’s claim against C as to the cause of the claim had a lending relationship, which was created or was at least based on the legal relationship before entering into the instant mortgage contract, the obligee’s right of revocation becomes a preserved claim, and there is no dispute that C had been in excess of the obligation at the time, the said mortgage contract constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, and furthermore, is a beneficiary.