logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.10.05 2017가단525987
사해행위취소
Text

1. It was concluded on July 18, 201 with respect to each of the respective real estates listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1 against B (the instant claim for indemnity) filed a lawsuit against B with the Gwangju District Court 2016Kadan50644, Jan. 19, 2017, the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 130,620,226 won and 130,619,769 won among them, 12% per annum from January 5, 2016 to January 31, 2016, 10% per annum from the next day to May 4, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive as is, the sum of the principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B as of October 13, 2017; and

B. On July 18, 2017, B entered into a sales contract to sell 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only real estate owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to KRW 820,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On July 21, 2017, B entered into an ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) with the former District Court No. 25093, Jul. 21, 2017, to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B was established prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract with the Defendant, and thus, the claim for reimbursement of this case may be the preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. The fraudulent act and the alteration of the real estate, the sole property of which is the debtor, to a money easily consumed is a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, and in such a case, the debtor’s intent of death is presumed to be presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da2515, Apr. 9, 199). In light of the above legal principles, the act of selling the real estate of this case, the only property of which is the debtor, to the defendant, is the creditor B.

arrow