beta
Text
1. B On April 9, 2014, at par value of KRW 1 billion for the Defendant, the payee, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s KRW 30 million to B on August 29, 2013, and the same year
9. 10.40 billion won was each lent.
B. At the time when B borrowed money from the Plaintiff, the real estate owned by the Plaintiff was limited to the previous forests and fields of C, D, E, F, G, and H in Nam-si, and on April 1, 2013, the procedure for the auction of real estate was initiated on April 1, 2013 by Sungwon District Court Sungnam Branch I, and on July 17, 2014, a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 275,870,346 to B as the owner’s surplus.
C. On the other hand, on April 9, 2014, B: (a) a notary public, on April 9, 2014, issued one promissory note with a face value of KRW 1 billion at a sight; and (b) on April 9, 2014, issued one promissory note with a maturity of April 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a view to recognizing the commencement of compulsory execution immediately where a notary public fails to repay money by the due date under No. 237, 2014; and (c) on April 22, 2014, the Defendant was issued an order of seizure and complete order with regard to the owner’s surplus claim that B would have with respect to the Republic of Korea during the said voluntary auction procedure.
The Defendant received the surplus of the owner who was distributed to B in the said distribution procedure, and transferred the amount of KRW 105,464,713 to the Plaintiff on September 19, 2016, and the Defendant received KRW 95,870,347.
[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 10, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the evidence No. 1 and No. 4, the issue of the Promissory Notes No. B’s small assets at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes No. 1 and No. 4 is recognized to have exceeded the value of active assets, and the issue of the Promissory Notes No. B’s small assets at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes No. 1 and No. 4 deepen
Therefore, the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case is a fraudulent act.