beta
Text
1. The sales contract concluded on July 2, 2014 between the Defendant and C with respect to the vessels listed in the separate sheet is KRW 87,375,342.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 40,000,00 to C at the maturity of October 30, 2013 and at the rate of 30% per annum.
(hereinafter “Loan Claim”). (b)
C On July 2, 2014, on the same day, after selling (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) a vessel listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant vessel”) which is the only property in excess of the obligation, was sold to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vessel”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said vessel on the same day.
C. As to the instant vessel at the time of the instant purchase and sale contract, the establishment registration of a mortgage was cancelled on the ground that the secured debt was repaid on August 11, 2017 in the name of Sungsan National Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “Masan National Fisheries Cooperatives”), the maximum debt amount of KRW 104,00,000, the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,000, the maximum debt amount of KRW 114,000,000, under the name of the E-mortgage and the maximum debt amount of KRW 114,000,000, respectively, with respect to the instant vessel, under the name of the obligor C, in the case of the Sungsan National Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “Masan National Fisheries Cooperatives”), and the registration of establishment of a mortgage contract was cancelled on the ground that the act of establishing a mortgage was revoked on June 17, 2015, based on the determination of the competent district court’s fraudulent act of KRW 315,381,451.
After the Defendant sold the instant vessel to G, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant vessel on March 13, 2017.
[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 10, 11, and Eul evidence No. 10 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings 1) The plaintiff held loan claims against Eul. The plaintiff did not appear prior to the holding of the loan claims against Eul. The selling of the ship of this case to the defendant, which is the only property in excess of the obligation as seen earlier (in accordance with Article 44(1) of the Fisheries Act, the defendant was not only the ship itself,