beta
Text
1. A contract concluded between the Defendant and Nonparty C on April 25, 2014 with respect to KRW 134,921,391, as well as the attached list.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, while lending KRW 265,00,00 to C, asserts that each of the contracts set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition between C and the Defendant entered into between C and C with the obligation to return the principal and interest of the loan as the secured obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act, and seeks its revocation and restitution.
The defendant asserts that there was no monetary lending and borrowing transaction between the plaintiff and C, and that the transaction alleged by the plaintiff was only a transaction with the non-party E, and that the existence of the secured obligation itself is different.
2. Facts recognized as basic;
A. The Plaintiff transferred C’s bank account, ① KRW 9.5 million on September 16, 201, ② KRW 50 million on February 7, 2012, ③ KRW 15 million on April 2, 2012, ④ KRW 64.5 million on August 7, 2012, ⑤ KRW 20 million on March 8, 2013, ⑤ KRW 60 million on May 15, 2013, and KRW 70 million on July 18, 2013, including KRW 264.5 million.
(hereinafter referred to as the "amount of remittance" in the order of remittance, and (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) the total amount of remittance.
Con April 25, 2014, the gift C of KRW 134,921,391 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant amount”) transferred KRW 131,619,494 from the F account in the name of the Defendant, the husband of his female, from the F account in the name of the Defendant, to the said G account in the name of the Defendant, who is the husband of his female, and withdrawn KRW 3,301,897 from the H account in the name of the said company, and paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 134,921,391 (hereinafter “the instant amount”).
C. On May 19, 2014, C prior to the registration of a motor vehicle against the Defendant, on May 19, 2014, followed the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet in its name (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) to the Defendant on the same day.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23 and 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
3. Determination as to the existence of C’s obligation against the Plaintiff
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 by the parties concerned is against C of the above remittance amount.