(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나67490

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나67490

사해행위취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as the “1. Basic Facts”, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the parties' arguments are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The establishment of a fraudulent act;

A. As to the establishment of a fraudulent act, where the obligor’s act of reducing liability property, thereby inducing or deepening the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation of creditor should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the subject matter of a fraudulent act is the proportion of the obligor’s entire responsible property; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the legitimacy and means of economic purpose of a juristic act; (d) the reasonableness of the act in question; (e) the reasonableness of the act; (e) the duty or circumstance of a juristic act; and (e) the degree of perception of the parties to the risks of insufficient common security, such as the existence of the obligor and the beneficiary

In addition, the act of a debtor in excess of his/her obligation to transfer claims and other active properties other than the original purpose of the obligation with respect to the performance of the obligation to some of the multiple creditors may, in principle, be a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, unlike the case where the debtor makes a repayment to a certain creditor according to the principal of the obligation. However, in such a case, in light of the general standard of judgment as seen above, if the act cannot be seen as an act detrimental to general creditors, it shall be deemed a fraudulent

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대법원 2015.02.26 2014다231163

-대구고등법원 2017.04.26 2016나24971

-대법원 2014. 1. 16. 선고 2012다110521 판결

-서울고등법원 2018.10.12 2018나2019840

-대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2011다28045 판결