logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.06.16 2015가합2009
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. On October 25, 201, the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s application for payment order, borrowed D KRW 100,000,000 on October 25, 201, KRW 50,000 on November 17, 2011, and KRW 25,000,000 on November 29, 201, filed an application for payment order (No. Jeju District Court Decision 2014 tea 630, April 8, 2014) with the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 10,00,00 on the ground that the Plaintiff loaned D KRW 100,00,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff had paid D the original copy of the payment order to D, and the payment order was finalized on April 29, 2014.

B. On May 17, 2012, each of the instant real estate transaction D between D and the Defendants sold each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendants at KRW 1,900,000,000, and the down payment of KRW 190,000,000 for a contract deposit and KRW 560,000 for an intermediate payment of KRW 560,000 for an intermediate payment of KRW 1,150,000 for payment on May 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On June 20, 2012, each of the instant real estate was registered for the transfer of ownership by one-half of each of the Defendants’ shares in the future.

C. 1) On January 29, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment ordering the Defendants to pay KRW 26,58,219, and delay damages for the reason that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act on the grounds that D’s creditor constituted a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1177, Jan. 27, 2016). However, the appellate court revoked the judgment of the first instance court and rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendants’ claim on January 27, 2016, on the grounds that the Defendants did not know that it would prejudice the creditors at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

[Attachment High Court ( Jeju) 2015Na290] E is dissatisfied with this.

arrow