(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.08.27 2013가단49923

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) 의정부지방법원 2014.08.27 2013가단49923

사해행위취소 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a loan lawsuit against C with the District Court Decision 201Ga61653, which stated that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 30,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from July 1, 2003 to December 23, 2011, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment,” and that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 30,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from July 1, 2003 to December 23, 2011,” and the said judgment was finalized on March 20, 2012.

B. Around June 2006, D, the father of the Defendant, lent KRW 70,00,000 to C. Since C did not repay it, C demanded C to complete the registration of creation of a mortgage on the part of the Defendant’s name as a collateral. C accepted it and on March 29, 2012, C entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant to make the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the only real estate owned by C, as indicated in C, at the time, (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On the same day, C completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the part of the Defendant.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff asserts that C's act of establishing a mortgage of this case, which is the only real estate owned by C, constitutes a fraudulent act that causes lack of joint security for creditors, including the plaintiff, and the defendant's malicious intent is presumed. Thus, C's contract of establishing a mortgage of this case between C and the defendant should be revoked, and the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case as restoration to its original state.

As to this, the defendant asserts not only that the act of establishing the right to collateral security between the defendant and C does not constitute a fraudulent act, but also that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary.

B. We examine the judgment, and the debtor.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.07.14 2015가단5530

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.12 2013가단5126502

-서울북부지방법원 2018.08.29 2017가단101802

-전주지방법원 2017.12.07 2017나3669

-서울동부지방법원 2014.04.17 2013가합12431