logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.08.23 2016가단10560
사해행위취소
Text

1. As to each real estate listed in the Schedule of Attached 1:

A. Nonparty C and Defendant A were concluded on April 10, 2015.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty C lent KRW 100,000,000 to Nonparty D Co., Ltd. with interest rate of KRW 3.69% per annum, and Nonparty C, who was the representative director of Nonparty D Co., Ltd, guaranteed this on the same day.

D and C did not pay interest on the debt of the loan since early 2015. As of March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff’s claim against C as of March 31, 2016 is the principal amounting to KRW 97,269,52, interest KRW 1,182,544, and delay damages amounting to KRW 6,919,651.

A sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was concluded on April 10, 2015 with regard to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) with Defendant A, Cho Jong-soo, and the Defendants, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 17, 2015.

C Around June 11, 2015, around June 11, 2015, concluded a sales contract with the Defendant B, his/her own punishment, for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as KRW 6,200,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 18, 2015.

On the other hand, at the time of each of the above sales contracts between C and the Defendants, C was insolvent as a debt excess.

【Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that C sells real estate owned by it to the Defendants in excess of its obligation, and as seen earlier, it constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, since C sells real estate owned by it to the Defendants while it exceeds its obligation, it is reasonable to deem it as a fraudulent act.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the sales contract between C and Defendant A on April 10, 2015 for the instant real estate No. 1 and the sales contract between C and Defendant B on June 11, 2015 for the instant real estate No. 2 and the instant real estate No. 2 is both fraudulent act.

arrow