logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.14 2015나2059373
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, which is a manufacturer of a claim voltage against the Plaintiff’s self-production, has continuously supplied a transformation device to the self-production who is a construction business operator for the production and installation of a water distribution team from the previous to December 2013. As of November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 431,978,000 for the goods from the self-production as of November 21, 2013. However, on December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff received KRW 20,000 out of the price for the goods from the self-production and received KRW 411,978,000 for the goods from the self-production and received KRW 20,000 for the goods.

B. (1) Around November 21, 2013, the Defendant, who is a selling company of the arbiopia, has a claim for the amount of KRW 240,600,000 for the purchase of goods as to whether the Defendant and the arbiopia had a claim on the purchase of goods. On November 21, 2013, the Defendant and the arbiopia, on which November 21, 2013, the claim for the purchase of goods was indicated in the separate sheet of KRW 435,916,000 for the Defendant’s arbal residence (hereinafter “instant claim”).

(2) The claim assignment contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "claim assignment contract of this case") shall be

(2) The Defendant was paid KRW 338,696,220, out of the bonds transferred by his/her own child from December 16, 2013 to May 15, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff continued to supply her former to her former to December 2013. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 431,978,000 from her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to receive KRW 431,978,000 for the purchase price of goods at KRW 431,978,00 for her former to her former to her former to November 21, 2013. However, even if her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her former to her latter,

arrow