(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.09.11 2013나5719 | 리걸엔진

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) 청주지방법원 2015.09.11 2013나5719

사해행위취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (1. 1.). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B concluded a promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate with the Defendant and completed the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership with respect to the instant real estate even though it was in excess of the obligation due to the instant loan obligation, etc., which constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff or other creditors.

Therefore, the reservation of this case should be revoked, and accordingly the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership should be cancelled in the future of the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion B had the right under the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and G land worth approximately KRW 133,916,000 at the market price. As such, B did not have any obligation excess at the time of the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the instant reservation does not constitute a fraudulent act.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, at the time of the instant promise to sell and purchase, the Plaintiff had the instant loan claim against B, which may be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. The “legal act detrimental to the obligee”, which is the requirement for one obligee’s right of revocation for a fraudulent act, is an act of disposing of the obligor’s property, and thereby, it would make it impossible for the obligee to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims by means of a decrease in the obligor’s property, which led to a lack of joint security for claims or a lack of joint security already available to the obligor. As such, such fraudulent act is established not only in cases where the obligor had already been in excess of his/her obligations prior to the disposal of property, but also in cases where the obligor was in excess

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.08.13 2019나64821

-서울고등법원 2019.06.13 2019나2006544

-대전지방법원논산지원 2020.03.05 2019가단23056

-춘천지방법원 2015.04.10 2014나3607