(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2017.12.08 2017가단102899

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) 부산지방법원서부지원 2017.12.08 2017가단102899

사해행위취소

Text

1. Consultations and divisions concluded on September 19, 2012 with respect to 1/4 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between B and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against B with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da569466, Oct. 22, 2010 that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 21,514,399 and 11,000,000 won among them, 19% per annum from December 30, 2005 to October 20, 2010; 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment to the day of full payment; 8,000 won per annum from December 30, 2005 to the day of full payment; and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 30, 2010 to the day of full payment; and the Plaintiff’s heir at the time of the death of the Plaintiff as the heir BD’s heir.

3) The inheritors, including the Defendant and B, are inherited property, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) After the agreement on the division of inherited property on September 19, 2012 was held by the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on September 19, 2012. At the time of the agreement on the division of inherited property as seen above, B was in insolvent. [The facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and

B. 1) Determination 1) If a debtor in excess of his/her obligation waives his/her right to inherited property in consultation with the division of inherited property, thereby reducing the joint collateral for general creditors. If the division of property falls short of the extent equivalent to the debtor’s specific share of inheritance, the waiver of the right to the shortage should be revoked as a fraudulent act. 2) According to the foregoing recognition, B, while consulting with the division of inherited property in excess of his/her obligation, renounced his/her right to each of 1/4 shares of the instant real estate, which is one of its specific share of inheritance, and thus, such agreement constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2017.11.17 2017가단104567

-대전지방법원 2019.11.28 2019나100514

-청주지방법원 2020.11.05 2020가단28313

-의정부지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나52637

-인천지방법원 2016.06.23 2015가단237884