beta
Text
1. The sales contract concluded on March 29, 2010 with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and B shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 3, 2009, on the other hand, the KUG notified 59,561,670 won of global income tax and 7,707,930 won of value-added tax on March 8, 2010, respectively, to B has not been paid until now.
B. However, on March 29, 2010, B completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant, who is one of its owners, on the grounds of sale price of KRW 215 million and sale and purchase (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
C. Around that time, B was only the instant real estate, the market price of which is 215 million won or more, but also the small property was 67,269,600 won for the Plaintiff’s debt, 115,548,626 won for Han Bank’s debt, 20,000,000 won for Han Bank’s debt, and 52,073,884 won for the Defendant’s debt.
However, at the time of the conclusion of the above sale and purchase contract, three (15,548,626 won in total) registration of the establishment of a three (115,548,626 won in total) of a single bank and the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (20,000,000 won in total) of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage against C was completed on January 9, 2012, which was subsequent to the acquisition of the above real estate, the Defendant repaid the entire secured debt of the Han Bank and C with each of the above secured claims and revoked the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 13 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Where the establishment of a fraudulent act and the obligor’s assets are insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s assets, the act of transferring the obligor’s active properties to some of the obligee as payment in kind is, in principle, a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees, unlike the obligor’s repayment according to the principal place of obligation to a certain obligee.
Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52416 Decided October 10, 2016