beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Case summary and judgment
A. When the Plaintiff (seller) and C (Buyer) concluded a sales contract on the fishing vessel listed in the annexed Table 1 (hereinafter “the instant fishing vessel”) on February 3, 2020, they agreed to pay in full the price of KRW 170,000,000 to March 18, 2020 and implement the relevant procedures for the transfer of ownership. However, even when the Plaintiff received only KRW 10,000,000 out of the above sales amount, the Plaintiff registered the transfer of ownership in C on February 4, 2020, and thereafter on February 19, 2020, the fact that the right holder of the instant fishing vessel was established with respect to the instant fishing vessel and the maximum debt amount of KRW 10,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant mortgage”) did not conflict between the parties, or that the entire purport of the pleadings as a whole is acknowledged by taking into account the purport of the arguments as stated in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the mortgage contract of this case between C and the Defendant on the instant fishing vessel constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff (or invalid legal act based on a false representation that conspired with the Plaintiff) and sought revocation and restitution of the original status, while the Defendant asserts that it is a bona fide beneficiary.
C. Although the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the issue of whether the beneficiary's good faith is determined reasonably by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; the details and motive of the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; the circumstances leading to the act of disposal; whether there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal and reasonable; and whether there are objective materials supporting the normal transaction; and the circumstances after the act of disposal. There is no issue of whether there is the beneficiary'
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da74621 Decided July 10, 2008; 2014Da19073 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.) D.
E.B. 1.