(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단512786

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) 광주지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단512786

사해행위취소

Text

1. The sales contract concluded on June 23, 2015 between the Defendant and B concerning each real estate listed in the separate sheet was 89,857.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 6, 2015, the director of the Gwangju District Tax Office notified the Defendant’s model B of KRW 93,802,730 of the transfer income tax on July 31, 2015.

B. B fails to pay the said capital gains tax by the payment deadline, including additional 12,754,390 won as of May 10, 2016, the amount in arrears shall be 106,557,120 won.

C. On June 23, 2015, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and is the following day.

6. 24. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer.

At the time of the instant sales contract, B was insolvent in excess of positive property.

E. At the time of the instant sales contract, the market value of the instant real estate was KRW 107,857,430 in total, and the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the instant real estate on July 24, 2015, which was after the instant sales contract was concluded by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts as seen earlier prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the conclusion of the sales contract with the Defendant on the instant real estate in excess of the debt is deepening the status of excess, barring any special circumstance, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the obligee, and the Defendant, a beneficiary of this point, is presumed to have been aware of the fact that B would harm the Plaintiff, the obligee due to the conclusion of the sales contract.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that he was bona fide due to the lack of knowledge of the debt relationship B, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the sales contract of this case as a fraudulent act

On the other hand, this case is about the restoration of the original state following the revocation of fraudulent act.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.02.08 2016가단51239

-광주지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가단19047

-광주지방법원 2017. 04. 18. 선고 2016가단512786 판결

-광주지방법원 2017.09.12 2016가단529784

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.03.28 2017가단107083