beta
Text
1. On December 27, 2016, the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the defendant and us Co., Ltd. was concluded on December 27, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts without dispute;
A. The Plaintiff holds claims for reimbursement against us Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea”), and the amount of such claims is KRW 85,770,115 as of March 8, 2017.
B. On December 27, 2016, us concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of establishment of a collateral with the Defendant as the receipt of the same date, setting the maximum debt amount at KRW 42403,00,000, which was set as the maximum debt amount at KRW 40 million.
C. Meanwhile, Korea was in a state of excess of the obligation at the time of concluding the aforementioned mortgage contract, and there was no particular property other than the instant real estate, and it was closed on January 18, 2017.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the establishment of a fraudulent act, the act of offering the instant real estate, which is one of the sole property of Korea, to the defendant under excess of its obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor.
In addition, it is presumed that the Defendant, who acquired the above mortgage from EC, was aware of such circumstance and concluded the above mortgage contract (the time when the Plaintiff acquired the claim for indemnity against EC on March 8, 2017, however, at the time of the conclusion of the above mortgage contract, because it was highly probable that the credit guarantee contract had already been concluded at the time of the conclusion of the above mortgage contract and the claim for indemnity has been established in the near future). Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the above mortgage was established in good faith to recover the existing claim without knowledge of EC’s debts. However, even if the above mortgage was established for securing the existing claim, it is obvious that it constitutes fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors’ joint liability.