logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2014.01.16 2013가합3306
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant D is dismissed.

2. The Defendants are listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 13.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 22, 2010, Plaintiff A and B leased KRW 300,000,000 to Defendant D on a yearly basis and on January 19, 2011.

On March 14, 2012, Defendant D issued a promissory note of KRW 100,000 at par value to Defendant C.

B. On October 9, 2009, Defendant D acquired the right to claim for ownership transfer registration of real estate as stated in attached Table 14 (hereinafter “instant land”) purchased from F and Taesung Construction Co., Ltd. from Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant land”) in the amount of KRW 2,200,000,000 from F and Taesung Construction.

The Korea Land and Housing Corporation, F, Taesung Construction Co., Ltd., and Defendant D agreed that the buyer status of the instant land in F and Taesung Construction Co., Ltd. will be accepted by Defendant D on March 31, 2010, but the sale price shall be KRW 1,416,00,000.

Defendant D respectively borrowed KRW 500,000,000 from Defendant E on February 23, 2010, and KRW 849,000,000 from Suwonsan Livestock Industry Cooperatives around March 2010 in order to raise the selling price of the instant land.

Defendant D separately borrowed KRW 740,00,000 from G on March 6, 2010 as of October 30, 2010.

C. On February 27, 2010, Defendant D awarded a contract for construction of a commercial building in KRW 2,088,00,000 on the instant land to the Sungil Integrated Construction Co., Ltd.

(2) On April 22, 2010, Sung Il Construction Co., Ltd. commenced the instant construction and completed the instant construction to the third floor bricks. However, on April 201, 201, the instant construction was suspended due to Defendant D’s failure to receive construction cost and paid KRW 160 million.

Defendant D demanded Defendant E to “A request the instant construction work to be entrusted even if the Promissory Notes were to be issued.” Defendant D accepted Defendant D’s request and resumed the instant construction work suspended.

On July 1, 2011, Defendant D issued a promissory note of KRW 780,00,000 at par value to Defendant E.

Defendant E shall be January 2012

arrow