beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 13, 2010, in the case of nullification of dismissal of C and D (hereinafter “D”) with respect to which C and C were the representative director, the Plaintiffs were sentenced to a confession judgment that “C and D shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff an amount of KRW 66 million and a rate of KRW 20% per annum from May 26, 2010 to the date of complete payment” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. Meanwhile, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, and 3, C received from the Changwon District Court on August 19, 2008 and received on August 18, 2008, and as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 4, D obtained each registration of ownership transfer from the Changwon District Court on August 19, 2008 and received on August 19, 2008, respectively from the Changwon District Court on August 19, 2008.
C. On September 17, 2008, the Defendant, instead of the Changwon District Court, filed a registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, under the Act No. 20230, Sept. 17, 2008, the lower court rendered a registration of creation of a mortgage against the creditor, South Korean Agricultural Cooperatives, and the debtor.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Gap's 3-1 to 4, Eul's 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Although it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was, in principle, incurred prior to the occurrence of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship which is the basis of the establishment of the claim has already occurred at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim has already been established in the near future based on such legal relationship, and where a claim has been created as a result of its realization in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). First, in this case, whether the Plaintiff has the preserved claim against the obligee.