beta
Text
1.(a)
The right to collateral security, which was concluded on August 18, 2015 between Defendant B and D, on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet No. 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty D seeking the repayment of the loan debt (as of November 10, 2010, the repayment period) against Nonparty G, and received a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff to jointly pay KRW 106,436,855 won and delay damages (as of November 1, 2016, D jointly with G).
B. On August 18, 2015, when the lawsuit was pending between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, D established a right to collateral security with the claim value of KRW 23,000,000 on a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is one of its own possession, and on the same day, C created a right to collateral security with the claim value of KRW 45,00,000 on the same day.
(hereinafter referred to as “each contract establishing each of the instant mortgages”).
The two vehicles are the only property of D.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim against D is a preserved claim against fraudulent act, and the establishment of a collateral security right against each of the motor vehicles listed in attached Tables 1 and 2, the sole property of D, is an act of reducing the joint security of other general creditors including the Plaintiff. Thus, each of the instant collateral security contract constitutes a fraudulent act.
Therefore, the Defendants asserted that they were bona fide since they concluded the instant mortgage contract at the end of demands, but they were presumed to have acted in bad faith. Therefore, the Defendants’ submission of evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants had known that each of the instant mortgage contracts was fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
(In good faith, the defendants' statements in itself can be inferred to be malicious. Accordingly, each of the instant cases.