logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.01.14 2014가합1837
사해행위취소
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage against Defendant C and the Plaintiff’s Defendant Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 24, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to Defendant B, but on November 25, 201, the said money between Defendant B and Defendant B was executed by Defendant B on November 25, 201, and real estate development and apartment construction projects (hereinafter “instant project”).

(2) On March 5, 2011, the Plaintiff and Defendant B paid KRW 300 million in total around that time, including the transfer of KRW 250 million to Defendant B’s account on March 15, 201.

However, Defendant B, while refusing to transfer the above right of sale, did not return the remaining KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff’s account from April 20, 2012, and KRW 50 million from May 14, 2012, among KRW 300 million received from the Plaintiff.

3) On February 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with Defendant B for a payment order claiming a total of KRW 490 million (investment amounting to KRW 340 million, the purchase price of KRW 150 million) and interest for arrears. Defendant B received a payment order on March 24, 2014 and filed an objection and transferred to this court 20196, but the Plaintiff’s withdrawal was completed on July 29, 2014. (B) Defendant B concluded a sales contract on the instant 1 and 2 real estate on April 1, 2014 with Defendant C and D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as stated in each of the instant Claim 2-2, each of the instant shares on May 23, 2014.

2) On February 6, 2014, Defendant B entered into a sales contract for real estate Nos. 3 and 4 of this case with Defendant Port Construction, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, such as the description of claim No. 3(b) in the future of Defendant Port Construction on February 11, 2014. [In the absence of dispute over grounds for recognition, Party A’s evidence No. 1 through No. 9 are written, respectively.

arrow