(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.10.18 2019가단105755

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) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.10.18 2019가단105755

사해행위취소

Text

1. With respect to D Forest land of 33,521 square meters in Gyeongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun:

A. The Defendants entered into a gift agreement on January 9, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. While the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between Defendant B and Defendant B on the basis of KRW 95 million for the lease deposit with respect to the Gu E and F, and paid KRW 95 million for the said lease deposit to Defendant B. Despite the fact that the said lease agreement had been terminated on September 20, 2013, the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of KRW 17 million for the said lease deposit from Defendant B.

B. However, on January 9, 2017, Defendant B completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) on the ground of the same date donation contract (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) with respect to the real estate as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Defendant C, one of his children, on the same day.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B’s conclusion of the instant gift agreement with Defendant C as the only property between Defendant C, one of his own children, constitutes a fraudulent act causing a decrease in common security for all general creditors including the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances. Defendant B’s awareness that the shortage of common security due to the instant gift agreement deepens, making it difficult for general creditors to repay. Thus, it is recognized as its intention, and further, Defendant C’s bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed.

Therefore, the gift contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and as a result, it shall be restored to its original state, Defendant C shall be obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case completed with respect to the real estate of this case to Defendant B.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is with merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.01.14 2015가단104181

-의정부지방법원 2013.12.06 2013가단18141

-서울중앙지방법원 2013. 09. 26. 선고 2013나22910 판결

-의정부지방법원 2019.07.25 2018나215702

-전주지방법원 2020.12.17 2020나2789