logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.19 2016나52590
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

2. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s establishment of the Plaintiff’s loan claim against C was friendly with the Defendant’s husband, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 110,00,000 to C, which was the Defendant’s husband, from December 6, 2013 to March 12, 2014. The Plaintiff applied for payment order (Tgu District Court 2014 tea3756) to receive the said loan claim. The said payment order was served to C on May 20, 2014, and became final and conclusive on June 4, 2014.

B. C’s disposal of property held the instant apartment as 1/2 shares with the Defendant, but on April 11, 2014, the Defendant, his wife, donated 1/2 shares to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant donation”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as prescribed by the Head of Suwon District Court No. 10542 with respect to the said shares on the same day.

The market price of the instant real estate at the time of the instant donation is KRW 331,00,000.

C. The Defendant and C married on January 2, 2001, and the Defendant and C confirmed their intention to divorce on August 20, 201, and reported divorce on August 25, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1, 16 evidence (including a Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the market price appraisal result of appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 110,00,000 to C in total from December 6, 2013 to March 12, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above claim against C in relation to the loan becomes a preserved claim subject to the revocation by the creditor.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the establishment of a fraudulent act is a fraudulent act, and the divorce between the Defendant and C is the most married. The said gift does not constitute a division of property according to divorce, in that it was made before the date on which a divorce is reported. Even if the instant gift is a division of property due to a true divorce, it exceeds a considerable degree.

arrow