beta
Text
1. B On January 6, 2009, the Defendant “amounting to KRW 112,500,000, issuer B, payee, Defendant, and date of issuance.”
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff has, with respect to B, the following claims based on the payment order (which became final and conclusive on August 24, 2010) of the Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea 86240 (Seoul Central District Court 2010).
“Claims with 9,982,31 won for indemnity due to the subrogation of April 24, 2008 and 19% per annum from April 25, 2008 to August 9, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”
B. B around January 6, 2009, around 1989, issued a promissory note (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”) to the Defendant, who is one of the employees, who had worked together with himself from around 1989 to around 2000, stating as “the face value amount of KRW 112,500,000, issuer B, issuer B, Defendant, and issuer B, Defendant, date of issuance, January 17, 2008, date of payment, January 8, 2009, and the place of issue and payment,” and written a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed in this case”) to accept compulsory execution under No. 10, 2009.
C. On January 19, 2009, the Defendant issued a bond attachment and assignment order for KRW 112,50,000, out of the wage claim against the NAFFF under Section 2009T in the notarial deed of this case and issued a bond attachment and assignment order for KRW 112,50,000. The Defendant received KRW 112,50,000 from the NAF from March 9, 2009 to February 21, 2012 by 43 times in total based on the above assignment order.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 3, and 4 certificates, each of these records, each of these courts' orders to submit tax information to the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, and the head of Seocheon-si, and the results of each reply to the submission of information on financial transactions to the Director of the Nonghyup Bank, the
2. The establishment of a fraudulent act;
A. The act of fraudulent act refers to an act detrimental to the creditor by reducing active property or increasing the negative property, or by deepening that the debtor has already been in excess of his/her obligation, so that it is intended to constitute a fraudulent act.