(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.27 2018가단31367

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.27 2018가단31367

사해행위취소 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty D, while using the credit card issued by the Plaintiff, did not pay the credit card fee from July 14, 2017.

Accordingly, on November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff has a credit card user fee of KRW 13,386,981 as of November 26, 201, and interest or overdue interest.

B. Meanwhile, while maintaining marital relations with the Defendant on May 4, 1984, D maintained a marital relationship with which the report of marriage was filed with the Defendant on May 17, 2017, it was confirmed on May 17, 2017 by Suwon District Court 2017No. 1093 and completed the report of divorce by agreement.

Accordingly, on June 20, 2017, D transferred the ownership of real estate indicated in the separate sheet with the Defendant as property division, but the Defendant concluded a property division agreement (hereinafter “instant property division agreement”) with the effect that the Defendant would take over the secured debt of the mortgagee E-ownership association, debtor D, maximum debt amount of KRW 84,00,000 with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant secured debt”). On the same day, D completed the registration of property transfer based on the instant property division agreement with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, on the same day.

C. On September 29, 2017, the Defendant repaid all of KRW 85,676,520 of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security to E Union, and on October 10, 2017, E Union cancelled the registration of establishment of the instant right to collateral security.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion D concluded the instant property division agreement with the Defendant with the purport of transferring the ownership of real estate indicated in the separate sheet, the sole property of which is one of his/her own property, in excess of his/her obligation. The instant property division agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the instant property division agreement was completed after the conclusion of the instant property division agreement.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.02.22 2017가단115498

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.18 2014가단5051544

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.13 2016가단5024768

-서울고등법원 2008. 09. 30. 선고 2008나33353 판결

-수원지방법원 2020.08.13 2019가합18412