(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.20 2014가단49929

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.20 2014가단49929

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 20, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the purchase price against Nonparty B, and rendered a judgment on November 20, 2006 that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 1, 2007 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Meanwhile, on October 28, 2009, the Defendant, the spouse of B, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the apartment of this case as the Busan District Court Decision No. 129151, No. 129151, Aug. 19, 2009, with the transaction price of KRW 680,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that B purchases the instant apartment under the name of the Defendant, which had no particular income at the time, with the aim of evading compulsory execution under insolvent, such as that it bears the liability for judgment against the Plaintiff, etc., and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and thereby title trust the instant apartment with respect to the Defendant on behalf of B, thereby seeking implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant apartment due to the termination of title trust on the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint in subrogation of B.

B. The Defendant’s assertion failed to prove that the Plaintiff was insolvent, and thus, failed to meet the requirements for exercising the obligee’s subrogation right, and the Defendant did not enter into a title trust agreement with B.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the existence of the necessity for preservation, B is obligated to pay the judgment of this case to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has the preserved claim of this case in subrogation of B.

However, if the preserved claim is a monetary claim, it is necessary for the debtor to neglect the reduction of the general property as the debtor is insolvent.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.12.27 2018가단5784

-춘천지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가단54582

-부산지방법원 2021.04.16 2019나61489

-서울서부지방법원 2014.11.20 2014가합32731

-서울고등법원 2015.04.30 2014나2050003