logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.11.17 2017가단3229
사해행위취소및소유권이전등기말소
Text

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. On February 11, 2016, between Nonparty B and the Defendant respectively.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty B with the Daegu District Court 2016Da39659, which sought the payment of loans incurred on June 16, 2012, and rendered a judgment on June 30, 2016 that “Defendant B (B) shall pay to the Plaintiff 52,992,804 won and 51,693,129 won per annum from March 24, 2016 to April 11, 2016, and 14.5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

B. B entered into a gift contract between B and the Plaintiff and the Defendant, his father, respectively, on February 11, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 16, 2016, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including additional numbers), each fact inquiry results against the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the President of the Korea Credit Information Agency, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition of the establishment of fraudulent act and the performance of the duty to restore, B entered into each gift agreement with the Defendant, his father, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property of his father, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, thereby exceeding his obligation.

As such, each gift act is an act of reducing liability property provided to the joint security of general creditors, and it is a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the above gift act, which is a fraudulent act, is revoked, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership as a performance of the duty to restore.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was originally owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer by title trust to B.

arrow