logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.07.24 2018나72041
사해행위취소
Text

The judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants in excess of the following portions shall be revoked, and such revocation shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From May 1, 2013 to June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff served as the general secretary of “M”, a gold parts processing company run by D, and lent money to D several times.

D On February 28, 2014, I promised on February 28, 2014 that I will pay 100 million won (12% per annum to the plaintiff) interest. I promised to repay the said money by April 30, 2016. I will be at a civil or criminal disadvantage at the time of the route. I prepared a loan certificate stating "I will be at a civil or criminal disadvantage" (hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case") and deliver it to the plaintiff along with a certificate of the personal seal impression.

B. As the Plaintiff was unable to receive the above credit from D, the Incheon District Court applied for a payment order seeking a loan as the Incheon District Court 2016 tea6524. On September 29, 2016, “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 100,000,000 won, and 12% per annum for the period from May 1, 2016 to the date of service of the original copy of the payment order, and 15% per annum for the period from the next day to the date of complete payment,” the payment order was issued and served to D on December 9, 2016, and the above payment order was finalized on December 24, 2016.

C. Defendant B was engaged in the gold-type manufacturing business after completing business registration under the trade name of “E”, but around May 2, 2016, Defendant B purchased gold-type processing facilities listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the gold-type facilities of this case”).

(hereinafter the above sales contract is referred to as the “instant sales contract.” The gold processing facilities listed in the table 1 to 17 attached Table 1 among the gold-type facilities of this case are those subject to financial lease from each capital company listed in the same table.

Defendant B merely acquired the lease liability for the gold-type facility of this case or paid by subrogation, but did not pay a separate purchase price.

On June 15, 2017, Defendant B established Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) and integrated it with said “E.”

arrow