beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has a claim against C with the principal and interest of KRW 97,772,480 as of August 22, 2013.
Meanwhile, as of August 22, 2013, C bears a separate obligation of KRW 58,093,094 as of August 22, 2013, C’s total amount of negative property at the said time is KRW 155,865,574 ( KRW 58,093,094).
C on August 22, 2013, selling each of the instant real estate, the sole property of which was the Defendant A, in KRW 60,000,000, and on the same day, completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning each of the instant real estate in the future of Defendant A, and Defendant A completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 29, 2014.
C In the event that a small property (15,865,574 won) on August 22, 2013 is insolvent in excess of active property (60,00,000 won for each of the instant real estate of C and Defendant A), C transferred each of the instant real estate to Defendant A, and Defendant A ordered Defendant B to create a right to collateral security on each of the instant real estate, which should be revoked as a fraudulent act. All of them should be revoked. The registration of transfer of each of the instant real estate completed in the future of Defendant A and the registration of establishment of each of the instant real estate completed in the future of Defendant B should be revoked.
B. In the event that a real estate on which a mortgage is established is transferred by a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act is established within the scope of the value of the real estate, that is, the balance obtained by deducting the secured claim amount of the mortgage from the market value (not consistent with the publicly announced land value). If the secured claim amount exceeds the value of the real estate, the assignment of the real estate concerned cannot be deemed a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20612, Jun. 12, 2001). Here, the secured claim amount is not the maximum debt amount but the claim amount actually
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da42618 delivered on October 9, 2001). C.
Judgment
. There is no dispute.