logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.02.03 2016나58783
사해행위취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

In the loan case filed against B on March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da638028, “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of 16.15% per annum from July 16, 2013 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 10,291,596 and its KRW 10,000 among them, and the said judgment was finalized on April 29, 2014.

B On March 23, 2015, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for shares of 2/13 of each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of share transfer on March 25, 2015.

B was active property at the time of the instant sales contract, and there was a 2/13 share of each of the instant real property, and was a small property that bears a debt equivalent to KRW 14,164,711 against the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] The Plaintiff, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, has a claim based on the said final judgment against B at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and thus, constitutes a preserved claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation.

Unless there exist special circumstances, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of himself, and changing or transferring such real estate to money easily consumed with or without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor and is presumed to have the debtor's intent of deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). As such, B's act of selling 2/13 shares of each of the instant real estate, which is one of its own property, to the defendant and changing it into money which is easy for the defendant to consume, becomes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is another creditor, and the plaintiff, who is the creditor, is also the beneficiary, unless it is acknowledged as the debtor's intention of deception B.

arrow