(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.01.15 2018가단36676

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.01.15 2018가단36676

사해행위취소

Text

1. On August 30, 2018, an inherited property concluded between the Defendant and C with respect to 2/7 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed for a monetary loan for consumption (No. 622, 2012, hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “The Plaintiff shall repay KRW 166,00,000 to December 31, 2012 and the remainder of KRW 166,00,000 until December 20, 2013, and shall pay KRW 1,50,000 on the 20th of each month,” which read “a notary public shall pay KRW 1,50,000 to a notary public” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. The Defendant is the deceased E’s spouse, and C and F were children between the deceased E and the Defendant, and the Defendant, C and F were co-inheritors upon the death of August 30, 2018.

C. The Defendant, C, and F agreed on the division of inherited property with the content that the Defendant would acquire each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the network E (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) on the same day (hereinafter “instant division agreement”), and on October 5, 2018, registered the transfer of ownership under the Defendant’s name.

C was in excess of the obligation at the time of the split-off consultation, and there was no particular property except 2/7 shares in inheritance shares among each of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. According to the facts of recognition of preserved claims, fraudulent act, and intention of piracy, the Plaintiff has a loan claim against C based on the notarial deed of this case.

In this case, the obligee's right of revocation has already occurred prior to the division consultation of this case, and thus becomes the preserved right of revocation.

In addition, in excess of debt, C made a division consultation with the content that the defendant shall acquire each of the 2/7 shares of inheritance among each of the instant real estate in excess of debt, thereby causing or deepening the shortage of joint security for general creditors including the plaintiff.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the division agreement of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and further, the debtor C is the same.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.01.15 2018가단36676

-대전지방법원공주지원 2015.09.03 2015가단648

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.10 2014가단52814

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.11.24 2020가단73065

-부산지방법원 2020.11.24 2020가단315914