beta
Text
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. On December 21, 2015, between B and the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B used a credit card of Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. around December 2014, and on January 12, 2016, as of January 12, 2016, the principal amount of debt incurred from the use of the said credit card reaches KRW 27,267,580.
B. On January 6, 2016, Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. transferred claims to B and notified B of the transfer of claims on January 11, 2016.
C. On the other hand, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), B entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on December 21, 2015 (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”). On the same day, B concluded a mortgage agreement as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) with the Defendant in the name of the Defendant, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant mortgage registration”) in the name of the Defendant, which amounted to B, 60,000 won.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-8, 11, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the plaintiff's cause of claim, B entered into the mortgage contract of this case with the defendant under insolvent, and presumed the defendant's bad faith as the debtor Eul's intent to cause harm and beneficiary. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the above mortgage contract should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant has a duty to restore the original status therefrom.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and its determination, the Defendant did not know of B’s guaranteed liability, and the Defendant loaned KRW 62,175,90 to C, who is the wife, with the intent to assume the responsibility of B, and duly completed the registration of the instant collateral security. Therefore, the Defendant asserts to the effect that it is a bona fide beneficiary.
However, even if the mortgage contract of this case was concluded genuinely, it constitutes a fraudulent act contrary to the principle of equality of creditors, barring any special circumstance, since the obligor provided certain assets to a certain creditor in excess of his/her obligation as security.