logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.09.29 2016가단77113
사해행위취소
Text

1. A donation contract concluded on October 10, 2014 between the Defendant and C with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiff has a claim against C pursuant to this Court Decision 2012Da40366 Decided October 17, 2013.

B. On September 2014, the Plaintiff participated in the auction procedure for real estate owned by C and received a distribution as dividends. On October 2, 2014, around October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff seized corporeal movables owned by C.

Accordingly, C completed the registration of ownership transfer due to donation in the name of the Defendant, one of his children, around October 2014, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in order to avoid compulsory execution of the Plaintiff in excess of debt.

C is subject to criminal punishment of a fine of KRW 500,000 due to the above act of evading compulsory execution.

(This Court Decision 2016Ma264 decided May 13, 2016). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the act of donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is one’s own child under excess of the obligation, constitutes an act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the obligee. In full view of the relationship between C and the Defendant, C’s property status, value of the instant real estate, etc., the obligor’s intent of prejudice is recognized, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to

Therefore, the contract of donation concerning the instant real estate between C and the defendant (the date of the contract of donation in the certified copy of the register) shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and accordingly, the defendant shall be obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership concerning the instant real estate to C as restitution.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.

arrow