beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Case summary and judgment
A. On May 11, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement as indicated in B with B on May 11, 2017, and B, upon the credit guarantee agreement, obtained a loan from C Co., Ltd. (S.) as indicated in attached Table 2 on May 12, 2017. However, on March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff subrogated for the above loan obligation to C Co., Ltd. on June 27, 2018 due to natural substances (a guarantee accident) of B, the Plaintiff subrogated for the said loan obligation to C, and accordingly, the Plaintiff owned the claim for indemnity amount of KRW 125,205,609 against B, and on December 7, 2017, B sold real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant sales agreement”); and on December 17, 2017, Defendant 201 to the effect that the ownership transfer registration between the parties concerned was nonexistent or acknowledged as a whole.
D C C
B. The gist of the cause of the claim is that the sales contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff seeks revocation and restitution against the defendant (the amount remaining after deducting the secured debt amount of the right to collateral cancelled after the sales contract of this case from the value of the real estate of this case).
C. In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future in the near future, and that the claim may also become a preserved claim only in cases where the claim has been established because its probability has been realized in the near future.
Supreme Court Decision 200Hun-Ga40 delivered on February 25, 2000