(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.11.12 2015가단72327

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.11.12 2015가단72327

사해행위취소

Text

1. With respect to real estate listed in the annex:

A. The contract to establish a mortgage concluded on September 11, 2014 between B and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement (hereinafter “instant prior suit”) with the competent court 2013dahap11622 with respect to “B” (hereinafter “instant prior suit”), and on November 19, 2014, the lower court rendered a favorable judgment that “B shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 29,048,565 won and delay damages for the amount of KRW 291,770,505 and 289,048,565 won among them,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On September 11, 2014, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with B as to the attached property, the only property of B, during the instant lawsuit, and on the same day completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the Gwangju District Court No. 24462, the amount of maximum debt, which is KRW 80,000,000, as the receipt of the Gwangju District Court’s pure Branch

(hereinafter “The instant mortgage contract” and “the establishment registration of a mortgage of the instant case”).

In light of the instant lawsuit and the registration of senior mortgage, etc. established on July 14, 2014, the market price of the attached real estate was not known. However, B had already been in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into the instant contract, or was in excess of the obligation by entering into the said contract at least.

The defendant is the husband of B (A's female son who is the husband of B).

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

2. Determination:

A. As seen earlier, B was already in excess of the obligation at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract, or at least was in excess of the obligation by entering into the instant contract, the instant mortgage contract concluded between B and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of B.

In light of the timing and relationship between B and the defendant of the contract to establish the right to collateral security of this case, it is presumed that B's intent to commit harm is recognized and the defendant's bad faith is presumed

B. As to this, the defendant shall not be the most recent obligation.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.11.19 2015가단14228

-청주지방법원 2015.11.26 2015가단105094

-서울동부지방법원 2013.10.23 2013가합101027

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.24 2014가단67490

-서울북부지방법원 2015.01.23 2014가단34437