beta
Text
1. The gift contract concluded on May 19, 201 between the Defendant and B with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet is KRW 74,716,678.
Reasons
1. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;
A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the acquisition of the real estate amounting to KRW 51,794,958, and KRW 21,842,948 from October 24, 2005 to KRW 5,511,165 from March 1, 2005 to the date of full payment. On May 19, 2016, the court below rendered a favorable judgment that "B shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from March 1, 2005 to the date of full payment." On April 13, 2006, the court below rendered a favorable judgment that "B shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from March 1, 2005 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive as to May 19, 2016 to the defendant's share in the attached list (hereinafter "real estate of this case").
3) A around May 2016, at the time when B completed the above share transfer registration, was liable to the Plaintiff. However, there was no other property other than 1/2 shares in the instant real estate and 4 million won in the middle and middle half of 3 million won. [The fact that there was no ground for recognition, the fact that there was no ground for dispute, the inquiry of the fact to the Plaintiff, the reply to the inquiry of the fact to the Jinju, the response to the submission of financial transaction information to the Korea Credit Information Institute, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. The establishment B of a fraudulent act was the only real estate owned by the Plaintiff in the status of bearing the obligation against the Plaintiff, which was donated to the Defendant the instant real estate share, and the transfer of shares was completed, thereby making the excess of the obligation worse or having a new omission in the status of excess of the obligation.
The gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and inasmuch as there is no reflective evidence to deny the intention of deception, B is presumed to have concluded the gift contract of this case with the intent to harm the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff may exercise the right of revocation against the Defendant, who is a beneficiary, and seek restitution with respect to the instant donation contract.
C. On the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant is the Defendant’s donation contract.