logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.07.21 2016가합871
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The Defendant and Nonparty C concluded on October 17, 2014 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s loan claim against C was loaned KRW 60 million to C, ① as of October 25, 2012 due date set as of October 25, 2013, and ② as of March 1, 2013, and KRW 200 million as of May 31, 2014, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”) b.

C’s disposal of real estate in this case was completed each registration of transfer of ownership to the Defendant under the Incheon District Court’s registration No. 104572, Oct. 28, 2014, on October 17, 2014, based on the sale and purchase as the cause of registration, among the possession of each of the instant real estate.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the registrations of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including branch numbers, and if they are not specially indicated, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff was a fraudulent act on October 17, 2014 between the Defendant and C, on the premise that the sales contract was concluded on the basis that it had been concluded on October 17, 2014. While the date on which each of the registrations of this case was the cause date on October 17, 2014, actual disposal was made on September 21, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that it does not constitute a fraudulent act when considering C’s property status at the time of that time. (2) Determination whether there was a legal act corresponding to C’s fraudulent act should be made after careful consideration of the significant impact on the interest between the parties, and the date on which such fraudulent act was actually conducted should be determined based on the standard date on which the document was actually conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da731384, Jul. 26, 2002).

arrow