(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.03.19 2018가단4471

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) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.03.19 2018가단4471

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with D, and set the loan to D with a maturity of KRW 85 million on May 20, 2015.

After that, D applied for the extension of repayment on several occasions, the maturity was extended on May 20, 2018.

B. D began to delay the payment of interest from October 24, 2014; D failed to repay the principal and interest of loan until May 20, 2018; and D remains 81,807,617 ( principal and interest of loan) as of October 16, 2018.

C. D. On January 22, 2014, the Defendant, a spouse, entered into a donation contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to one half of the shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 24, 2014.

At the time of the donation, D did not have any property other than the real estate of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Partial number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(ii) subparagraph (ii). Each entry of subparagraph (ii) and the purport of the entire pleading

2. The Defendant’s donation of the instant real estate, the sole property of D, which is the only property that bears the Plaintiff’s obligation to lend to the Plaintiff, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant contract should be revoked, and the Defendant is obliged to cancel the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate.

3. Determination

A. Since the fact that D did not have any property other than the instant real estate to D at the time of donation to the Defendant, there is room for the instant contract to constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff.

B. However, in view of the fact that the division of property following the divorce is a liquidation of the common property formed through mutual cooperation between the parties during the marriage, the support for the other party is not a system that has the nature of supporting the other party. As a result, the obligor who has already been in excess of the obligation has transferred a certain property to his/her spouse

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.06.20 2019가단329

-인천지방법원 2017.12.20 2017가단19899

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.01.08 2012가단34552

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2021.02.17 2020가단7797

-대법원 2016.08.23 2013다64878