beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price (Cheongju District Court 2015Gahap21), asserting that he/she had a claim for the purchase price of KRW 180 million against C. On October 22, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “C shall serve the Plaintiff a copy of the complaint against the foregoing case on January 21, 2015, jointly and severally with I Co., Ltd., for KRW 180,000 and KRW C. From the following day: from May 15, 2015 to the day of full payment, I shall pay the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from May 15, 2015 to the day of full payment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.
B. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C on one half of each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning each of the instant real estate on the following day.
C. C did not have any property other than each of the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract.
The Defendant purchased the entire real estate of this case in KRW 1,120,00,000. The market price of each real estate of this case was a total of KRW 1,233,874,825 at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser D by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
(a) The sale of preserved claims and the debtor's only property, which is the only property of his own, was conducted through a substantial sale in order to cover some creditors' legitimate repayment, due to the act of selling real estate and changing it into money which is easily consumed;
Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's intention of deception is presumed to be presumed to be a fraudulent act against the creditor at all times, and the burden of proof that the purchaser did not have bad faith is the beneficiary.
(See Supreme Court Decision 66Da1535 delivered on October 4, 1966).