beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim A shall be dismissed;
3...
Reasons
1. As to the principal lawsuit
A. Basic Facts 1) On July 5, 2005, the Korea Exchange Bank applied for a payment order against Defendant A with Daegu District Court Decision 2005 tea17439, and the above court issued an order to pay 8,711,254 won to the Korea Exchange Bank and 5,819,370 won among them at the rate of 29% per annum from June 18, 2005 to the date of full payment. On December 5, 2005, the above payment order was delivered to Defendant A and D on December 20, 2005, and the above payment order became final and conclusive on the 20th of the same month. 2) On January 6, 2012, the above court issued the payment order to Defendant A and D to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with Defendant D on the 14,96,98, and the payment order to the Plaintiff on the 2010th of the same month from June 18, 2012.
3) The registration of transfer of ownership was completed on April 4, 2017 under the name of Defendant B and C on November 19, 2016 on the instant real estate upon the split-off consultation among the Defendants regarding the network E inherited property. [Evidence A Nos. 6, 9, and 10 are written.]
B. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the credit card payment obligation against the Korea Exchange Bank of Korea, and the Korea Exchange Bank of Korea, on November 3, 2006, transferred the said claim to the Korea Exchange Bank of Korea Co., Ltd., and on July 29, 2010, the Kanyang Mutual Savings Bank of Korea again notified the Plaintiff on September 10, 201, as the principal debtor D and the Defendant A, a joint and several surety, a joint and several surety, after transferring the said claim to the Plaintiff on July 29, 2010, the Defendant A shall pay the Plaintiff the acquisition amount. Since Defendant A disposed of the ownership of the instant real estate to the Defendant B and C under excess of the obligation, the above agreement on the division of inherited property, which constitutes a fraudulent act, was revoked, and Defendant B and C shall restore to its original state.