beta
Text
Defendant C’s KRW 20,000,000 and its amount are 10.08% per annum from May 12, 2020 to September 24, 2020.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, on November 8, 2019, loaned KRW 10.8% per annum to Defendant C with the interest rate of KRW 13.8% per annum, overdue interest rate of KRW 13.8% per annum, and from June 11, 2020 to November 11, 2020, the Plaintiff agreed to receive equal repayment of principal and interest of KRW 20,000,000, and Defendant C lost its profits by delaying payment of principal and interest after the filing date of the instant lawsuit. The fact that Defendant C lost its profits by delaying payment after the filing date of the instant lawsuit does not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, or recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings. Accordingly, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of KRW 20,00,00 and its equivalent interest rate of KRW 10.8% per annum from May 12, 2020 to September 19, 2020, the delivery date of the instant complaint.
2. Claim against Defendant D
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant C sold real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property in excess of the obligation, to Defendant D constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, which is the obligee, and the intent of Defendant D’s intent is presumed to exist. As such, the sales contract on the instant real estate between Defendant C and Defendant D should be revoked as a fraudulent act. As such, Defendant D is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the instant real estate due to restitution to its original state.
B. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant C had been in excess of the obligation at the time of concluding the sales contract for the instant real estate solely with the statement of the evidence No. 4, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
In addition, in full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 6, it is recognized that Defendant D introduced the instant real estate through the real estate agent office and concluded a sales contract for the instant real estate with the Plaintiff. Since Defendant D did not seem to have known or could have known the excess of the obligation of Defendant C, Defendant D’s intent is not recognized.
Therefore, the plaintiff's fraudulent act against the defendant D is revoked.