(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.10.12 2016나203 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구고등법원 2016.10.12 2016나203

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial of the court of first instance while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance, and the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion even if both the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2 submitted in the court of first instance, and the postal service information center of the court of first instance, and the results of each reply to the submission order to the No. 1

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the judgment as described in the following Paragraph 2 to the assertion that the Plaintiff stressed at the trial. As such, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. At the time when the Plaintiff’s assertion D, from May 29, 2014 to July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired 168,00,000 won from the Plaintiff, the Defendants were in insolvent conditions, such as being designated as a recipient of basic living without any specific occupation or income and being subsidized for living expenses. Therefore, there was no financial ability to lend money to D in light of the economic situation of the Defendants.

Therefore, Defendant B received KRW 60 million from Defendant C, and Defendant C received KRW 40 million from D, not having received loans from D, but having received each of the above amounts.

Therefore, the act of donation of each of the above money to the Defendants in insolvent with no other property by D constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff who has the damage claim against D due to a tort.

B. Determination is based on the following facts: (a) the obligee asserting that the obligor’s legal act is a fraudulent act and seeking its revocation is not only the existence of the preserved claim and the obligor’s legal act, but also the existence of the obligor’s legal act, etc.; (b) the obligor has caused insolvency due to the obligor’s legal act, and (c) the obligor

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.11.19 2019가단22755

-인천지방법원 2019.12.24 2019가단224367

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.12.09 2016가단103202

-대법원 2018.03.15 2016다219839

-인천지방법원 2020.11.17 2019나70448