(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.08.14 2018가단3996

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) 광주지방법원 2018.08.14 2018가단3996

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Until May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not receive KRW 27,731,700, out of the total construction cost of KRW 37,731,700, when Nonparty C performed tin construction in a multi-household house and boundary tin construction work.

C On September 12, 2017, the Defendant and the Defendant made a promise to sell and purchase the real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant promise to sell and purchase”), and on September 13, 2017, the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed on September 13, 2017 by the Youngam District Court receipt No. 14921.

(hereinafter “Provisional Registration of this case”). This is a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a creditor, and is recognized as the Defendant’s intent of deception, and thus, seek the cancellation of the reservation of this case and the cancellation of provisional registration of this case.

2. First of all, C was in excess of his/her obligation at the time of the establishment of the reservation and provisional registration of the instant trade;

The plaintiff is unable to prove that the above pre-sale contract, etc. was omitted in the status of excess of the obligation.

There is no evidence that the establishment of the reservation and provisional registration of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

Furthermore, on September 2017, the Defendant alleged that C lent 700 million won to D Co., Ltd. operating funds operated by C, and created provisional registration on the instant real estate, etc. for the purpose of securing the return of the loan.

The evidence Nos. 1 through 3 is fully consistent with the defendant's argument, and according to this, it is judged that the defendant and C have made the reservation and provisional registration of the sale of this case in accordance with normal transaction relations.

Even if the pre-sale agreement and the establishment of provisional registration of this case constitute a fraudulent act, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intent of deception.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.11 2016가단53235

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2019.12.18 2019가단10868

-부산지방법원 2020.09.25 2019나51857

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.11.25 2019가단117208

-부산지방법원 2019.12.10 2019가단11230