beta
Text
1. As to the portion of 1/4 out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2
A. It was concluded on August 19, 2013 between the Defendant and B.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 27, 201, the Plaintiff lent a loan of KRW 150 million to B as of May 27, 2014.
B. However, B only paid interest of KRW 200,00 among the principal of the above loan and interest until May 19, 2013, and lost the benefit of time due to the failure to pay interest thereafter.
C. The Plaintiff’s claim against B reaches KRW 14,80,00 as of February 2, 2017, and KRW 10,320,624 as of May 10, 2013 to February 1, 2017, and KRW 25,319,90,00 in total, and KRW 193,285 in provisional payment.
B on August 19, 2013, “The real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table Nos. 1 and 2,” sold 1/4 shares among the real estate Nos. 1 and 2, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on August 22, 2013, sold to the Defendant on August 19, 2013, “the real estate listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table No. 3,” and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on August 20, 2013.
(e) At the time of the conclusion of each of the instant sales contracts, B was in excess of its obligation at the time of the conclusion of each of the instant sales contracts. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including those with serial number; hereinafter the same applies)
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition of the right to revoke a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff’s claim against B becomes a preserved claim against the obligee’s right to revoke, and the selling of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of the obligation constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances, and the Defendant’s bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed.
B. The sales contract of this case between the Defendant and the Defendant of the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, which was concluded with respect to 1/4 of the real estate No. 1 and 2 of this case, should be revoked.
In addition, the restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act under Article 406 (1) of the Civil Code should be based on the return of the object itself in principle, but the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name is implemented.