(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단135888

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단135888

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 2013, D, the Plaintiff’s debtor, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to C according to the sales contract with C on May 1, 2013.

B. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration and restitution as a fraudulent act on the ground that the above sales contract between D and C was a fraudulent act by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da147495, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration and restitution. On June 9, 2015, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was handed down on the 30th day of the same month.

C. On July 7, 2015, the copy of the register of this case is written that C sold the instant real estate to the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in the court, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion (the assertion following the change in the cause of the claim) was made on July 7, 2015 regarding the instant real estate, unlike the entry in the certified copy of the register, which was actually concluded between D and the Defendant, should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act by D concerning the instant real estate, and the registration of transfer of ownership should be revoked due to restitution to original state.

3. In determining the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff asserted that C is not a party to the above sales contract while seeking the cancellation of the sales contract between C and the Defendant, and that C is not a party to the above sales contract. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s submission of the evidence alone is not a party to the sales contract as “D, not a party to the said contract,” and it is difficult to recognize that

4. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.05.29 2017가단110700

-수원지방법원 2019.09.04 2018가합25789

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2020.11.27 2019가단35261

-서울서부지방법원 2015.11.13 2015가단1966

-대구지방법원 2014.12.17 2014나303110