beta
Text
1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. A sales contract concluded on May 6, 2013 between the Defendant and B.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff in obtaining a loan from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “the instant credit guarantee agreement”) around 2009.
B. B caused a credit guarantee accident due to delinquency in principal on April 2, 2013, and the Plaintiff subrogated the principal and interest.
C. B is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the principal amounting to KRW 4,389,617, KRW 30, KRW 59,380, KRW 449,027, and any delay damages for the principal amounting to KRW 4,389,617, in accordance with the instant credit guarantee agreement.
B on May 6, 2013, each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) as one of the only property of the Defendant was sold to the Defendant, and on May 9, 2013, the Suwon District Court Registry issued the registration of transfer of the entire B shares under No. 71688 on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9, result of an order for submission of taxation information by this court, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Determination as to the cause of a claim 1) An obligor’s sale of real estate, which is the sole property, and alteration of the price easily for consumption, becomes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances, and an obligor’s intentional intent, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of joint collateral for claims, and thus does not require or intent to harm creditors, and where the obligor sells real estate, which is the sole property, and alters the price for money easily for consumption, the obligor’s intent is presumed, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferee has not acted in bad faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009) is presumed to exist in the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da8458, May 14, 2009). According to the foregoing recognition