logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.02.07 2015가단52861
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D lent KRW 90 million to E, May 20, 2013, and transferred the foregoing loan claims to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2014. On August 12, 2014, E changed its trade name to C (hereinafter “C”).

B. On December 11, 2014, C entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) as C owner (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, C did not have any particular active property other than the instant building; on the other hand, C bears obligations exceeding KRW 400,000,000, such as the said obligation against the Plaintiff and the obligations against F

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as to whether a fraudulent act is a fraudulent act, exercises the obligee’s right of revocation by asserting that the instant sales contract is a fraudulent act. In the case where a mortgage has been established on the subject matter transferred by the obligor to the beneficiary in a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act, the liability property offered to the joint security of general creditors among the subject matter is limited to the remainder after deducting the secured claim amount. If the secured claim amount exceeds the value of the subject matter, the transfer of the subject matter cannot be deemed a fraudulent act

However, in cases where multiple real estate joint mortgages have been established, the amount of secured debt on each real estate should be considered as the amount divided by the amount of secured debt on each joint mortgages in proportion to the value of each real estate that is the object of joint mortgages in light of the purport of Article 368 of the Civil Code, barring special circumstances.

However, the number of such cases.

arrow