beta
Text
1. As to shares B 14/105 of shares and C 14/105 of shares in each real property listed in the separate sheet:
A. Defendant B, C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Western District Court for a payment order against B, C, etc. for a reimbursement order with the Seoul Western District Court 2013 tea5763. On August 19, 2013, the said court jointly and severally ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 666,280,291 and its delayed damages. The said payment order was finalized on October 11, 2013.
B. B and C entered into a contract of donation with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) on July 15, 2014 with respect to shares B 14/105 and shares C 14/105 (hereinafter “each co-owned share”) among each real estate listed in the separate sheet as indicated in the separate sheet, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the instant transfer of ownership”) to the Defendant on July 21, 2014 as the receipt of the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on July 21, 2014.
C. At the time of the donation contract of this case, B and C did not have any property other than the share of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), non-contentious head of this court, fact inquiry result of each fact inquiry about the Minister of Court Administration and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant's bad faith, a beneficiary, is presumed to be a beneficiary, as the contract of this case, where B or C, who was liable to the plaintiff, has no specific property, donated each of the co-ownership shares of this case, which is the only value of the property under the contract of this case, to the defendant.
As to this, the defendant lent KRW 20 million to pro-Japanese around February 28, 2013 and concluded the donation contract of this case in lieu of repayment of the above loan, it is alleged that he is a bona fide beneficiary. However, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number) is difficult to recognize that he is a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.