logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.06.22 2015가단41979
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on December 4, 2014 between the Defendant and Nonparty C.

2. The defendant shall pay 59,500,000 won to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On July 14, 2014, Nonparty C misrepresented the Plaintiff as the principal manager of “D,” thereby deceiving Nonparty C to punish 30% of the amount invested if he/she subscribed to a private equity fund, and acquired the amount by transfer from the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 416 million around that time, and C was convicted of committing fraud. Upon receipt of a judgment of conviction, the Plaintiff filed a compensation order against C in the relevant criminal case by requesting for compensation order against the Defendant, and the compensation order became final and conclusive. Meanwhile, the Defendant is the female student of C, E large 408С and its ground building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) on behalf of the Defendant, with the overall statement of KRW 396,627,712 as well as KRW 350,00,00,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff, or with the overall statement of KRW 301,50,000,000,000,000.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff C donated KRW 183.5 million to the Defendant for purchase of the instant real estate, or in collusion with the Defendant, repaid the above amount among the loan claims against the Defendant. This constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, who has the claim for compensation order against C, and there was intention for harming C.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to cancel the fraudulent act and pay the plaintiff KRW 183,500,00 to the original state.

B. Of KRW 183.5 million, the purchase price of the instant real estate by Defendant is KRW 124 million, a bank loan. The remaining KRW 59.5 million was paid out of KRW 103,94,276,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the Defendant did not receive a donation of the purchase fund of the instant real estate from C, and the Defendant did not know that it was in excess of the obligation at the time of the said repayment. As such,

arrow