logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2017.10.17 2017가단1652
사해행위취소등
Text

1. It was concluded on August 26, 201 with respect to shares of 2/11 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between B and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2003, the Plaintiff’s claim against ELD Investment Securities Co., Ltd. transferred loans, etc. from ELD Investment Securities Co., Ltd. to ELD Investment Securities Co., Ltd. pursuant to the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order against B for the payment of the above transfer amount (CY 2016j. 233, Changwon District Court Tongwon District Court 2016j. 233), and in the above case, the payment order issued on February 3, 2016, stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,538,679, and the amount of KRW 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to April 27, 2006; 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015; and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet on division of inherited property on each real estate (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) was owned by C, and C died on August 26, 2016. On February 27, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer was made on August 26, 2016 under the name of the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff’s penalty and C’s child, due to inheritance due to division as of August 26, 2016.

C. At the time of the death of C’s property inheritance C, there was a spouse D, the Defendant, the child, E, B, and F. D.

B’s property condition B is in excess of the obligation since 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 4 and Eul 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. According to the facts of recognition of Paragraph 1 of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff’s claim against B of the amount transferred is the preserved right against the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act.

B. According to the facts of recognition of the fraudulent act Paragraph 1, although B was in excess of the debt at the time of the agreement on the division of inherited property with respect to each of the instant real estate, B made an agreement on the division of inherited property with respect to B’s shares in inheritance among the instant real estate as owned by the Defendant. The Plaintiff, a insolvent, is the Plaintiff

arrow