logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.10 2018나63624
사해행위취소
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

Attached list between the defendant and C.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against B was lent KRW 70,000,000 to B, and the Plaintiff repaid KRW 15,000,000 among them.

Accordingly, on May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff and B entered into a loan certificate with interest of 2% per month on the remainder of 55,000,000 won, and until August 30, 2016, and C entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement on the above loan obligation as the husband of B.

B does not pay interest after June 1, 2016.

B. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer of ownership”) was completed as of July 15, 2016 on the instant real estate, which is the only real estate owned by the disposal disposition C, as indicated in the attached list C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), based on the purchase and sale as of July 15, 2016, Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch Branch Office received on August 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on whether a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that the sales contract for the instant real estate between the Defendant and C was actually concluded as of July 15, 2016, not as of February 16, 2016, and that it was concluded as of February 16, 2016. 2) The judgment should be made with careful consideration of the significant impact on the interest between the parties when complying with the relevant legal principles, and the date when the legal act constituting a fraudulent act was actually conducted shall be determined as of the standard when the legal act constituting a fraudulent act was conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73138, 73145, Jul. 26, 2002).

arrow