logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.10.15 2018가단334530
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with B, with the trade name of “C”, setting the guarantee amount of the principal and interest of loan to be repaid from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), as of April 24, 2013 (the extension of the guarantee amount by April 20, 2018 thereafter) and the guarantee term was extended by 95 million won, and B obtained loans from D as collateral security.

B. B delayed the payment of the principal and interest of loan to D on May 29, 2018, and D claims that D discharge the guaranteed obligation to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 70,601,398 to D on August 28, 2018.

C. Meanwhile, on July 19, 2017, B entered into a continuous supply contract for cosmetics (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) with the Defendant, a corporation for the purpose of selling cosmetics, etc., setting the contract period from August 1, 2017 to July 31, 2018 (i.e., automatic extension where the intention of termination is not expressed). The Defendant supplied cosmetics, etc. to B around that time.

B On April 30, 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract to establish a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) with a maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on May 1, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B concluded a mortgage contract of this case with the Defendant in excess of his obligation and completed the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case, and thus, the above mortgage contract should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act.

B. The Defendant’s assertion B concluded the instant mortgage contract in order to be provided with goods necessary for the continuation of business, which constitutes a fraudulent act.

arrow