beta
Text
1. It was concluded on July 7, 2017 with respect to the shares of 2/13 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and E.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 21, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E with respect to the claim for acquisition amount, and sentenced on January 21, 201, that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 49,712,909 won and 16,386,837 won with interest rate of 18% per annum from September 15, 2010 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. Division of the inherited property consultation between Defendant and E, etc. (1) deceased on July 7, 2017 (hereinafter “the deceased”) and his/her heir, who is his/her spouse, G, H, D, I, and E.
(2) On July 7, 2017, regarding each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the deceased, the inheritors divided the inherited property agreement with the Defendant’s sole possession of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the Defendant’s name on May 25, 2018. The Defendant again completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 17, 2018.
(3) The value of the instant real estate at around the closing date of the instant argument is 39,00,000 won in total.
C. E was insolvent at the time of the instant consultation and division.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. Since the Plaintiff’s claim against E established the preserved claim existed prior to the instant agreement division, it becomes a preserved claim in the obligee’s right of revocation.
B. It is deemed that E, who bears the obligation against the plaintiff for the establishment of the fraudulent act, has reduced the joint security against the general creditor by giving up his right to his share of inheritance in the agreement division in insolvent. Therefore, this becomes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and the defendant's intention to commit a fraudulent act is presumed.
Ultimately, the instant split-off agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the third party after the fraudulent act regarding the instant real estate should be restored to its original state.