logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.11 2015가합573104
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. From November 22, 201 to June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 206,50,000 to C with interest rate of KRW 2% per month. C repaid the Plaintiff four times from July 7, 2014 to October 7, 2014, and issued a written plan for repayment of borrowed money with interest in arrears to the Plaintiff before December 30, 2014. (2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking repayment of loans, etc. under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da53039, Aug. 28, 2015; and (3) the Plaintiff received from the said court a judgment of KRW 213,50,79,797; and (4) the amount in arrears to the Plaintiff from July 7, 2014 to October 7, 2014 to December 30, 2017.

C appealed in Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2049024, but the appellate court also rendered a judgment dismissing appeal on September 2, 2016, and the first instance judgment on September 28, 2016 became final and conclusive as it is.

B. C purchased the instant real estate on November 19, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 22, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court’s registry office No. 3488 with respect to the instant real estate. (2) On January 22, 2015, C entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) with the Defendant on the same day, and on the same day, C completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”) under Article 3491 with respect to the instant real estate by reason of the instant pre-sale agreement with the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion C is the instant case’s property, the sole property of which is insufficient to repay the entire debt at the time of promise to sell and purchase the instant case.

arrow