(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가단4621

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가단4621

사해행위취소 및 소유권이전등기말소 등

Text

1. As to the buildings listed in the separate sheet:

A. The trust contract concluded on October 20, 2016 between the Defendant and D is revoked.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiffs were employed by D by July 31, 2017, and retired from office. D was in arrears with the wages of KRW 4 million to Plaintiff A and KRW 9,263,32 to Plaintiff B.

B. Meanwhile, on October 20, 2016, D entered into a trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) with the Defendant, his/her wife, as to the apartment as indicated in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as one’s sole property, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on October 24, 2016 under the instant trust agreement as the receipt No. 70580 of the Seoul Northern District Court’s receipt on October 24, 2016.

[Ground for recognition] In the absence of dispute, where a debtor concludes a trust contract with a third party with respect to real estate, which is the only property of the defendant, without discharging his/her obligation, and completes the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the third party, the trust contract shall be deemed to be a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da41490 delivered on September 7, 199), barring any special circumstance, the execution of the trust contract of this case with respect to the apartment of this case, which is the only property between the defendant and the defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act. Thus, the trust contract of this case concluded between the defendant and D shall be revoked as described in paragraph (1) of this Article, and the defendant shall be obligated to restore to its original state, thereby performing the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the apartment of this case.

As to this, the defendant, for three years, lent KRW 220 million to D, and it did not receive wages of KRW 30 million from D, and D completed the registration of the trust in the future of the defendant with respect to the apartment of this case. Thus, the trust contract of this case does not constitute fraudulent act.

The purpose of the instant trust contract is to examine the Defendant’s assertion, even if based on the Defendant’s assertion.

참조판례

-대법원 1999. 9. 7. 선고 98다41490 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.12 2016가단148294

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.10 2019가단5227995

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.07.21 2019가단11349

-전주지방법원군산지원 2020.01.17 2019가단50449