logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.01.22 2017가단34260
사해행위취소
Text

1. The gift agreement entered into on February 25, 2016 between Defendant C and F with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and F jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligation.

B. On December 15, 2015, F: (a) on the real estate indicated in the attached list, on December 15, 2015, the Defendant Company created a right to collateral security of KRW 30 million with a maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million with a debtor as G (hereinafter “H”); and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation on March 15, 2016 to Defendant C on February 25, 2016.

At the time of each contract to establish a mortgage and a donation contract, F was in excess of the obligation.

C. G failed to pay interest to the Plaintiff from October 17, 2016, and on February 2, 2017, G lost its benefit of time due to the termination of the loan agreement.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, the court I, and the fact-finding results of each fact-finding to J Co., Ltd., the purport of the entire pleadings】

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the F in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act which reduces the liability property provided as joint collateral, and thus, the Defendants, a beneficiary, are presumed to have been malicious. Thus, barring any special circumstance, each of the above contract establishing a mortgage and the contract establishing a gift shall be revoked, and the Defendants, due to its restitution, shall be obliged to F to cancel the registration of establishment and the registration of transfer of ownership of each of the instant real estate.

3. As to the determination of Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C asserted that the instant real estate does not constitute a fraudulent act even if it was donated as it has no value as a responsible property, considering the deposit for lease on a deposit basis with respect to the instant real estate. However, the instant real estate is not a fraudulent act.

arrow