(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.24 2017가단114792

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) 대구지방법원 2018.05.24 2017가단114792

사해행위취소

Text

1.As to the portion of one eighth of the real estate listed in the Schedule, and recorded in the Schedule,

A. The defendant and B (C) on December 16, 2016

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2015, the Plaintiff acquired a loan claim against B from Han Capital Co., Ltd.

B. On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against B, and on December 17, 2015, the payment order (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015 tea79561) issued to the Plaintiff to pay KRW 42,922,593 and its delay damages.

C. Around December 2016, D, the mother of B, died. The inherited property had each real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) with the inherited property, and eight children including B and the Defendant were the inheritor.

B on December 16, 2016, concluded a contract on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant contract on the division of inherited property”) with the purport of devolving one-eight percent (1/8) shares (1/8) of the inheritance shares of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, and D’s other inheritors also shared the division of inherited property with the purport of devolving the inheritance shares of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant.

E. According to the above consultation, on March 29, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant under the Daegu District Court No. 44413, as to the entire real estate of this case, including 1/8 of the inheritance shares in B.

F. On the other hand, B was in excess of the debt more than the property at the time when the agreement on division and the registration of transfer of ownership were made.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, it constitutes a fraudulent act that causes damage to creditors, including the plaintiff, and in such a case, the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed to have been presumed to have been committed to the defendant that Eul in excess of his/her obligation reverts to the defendant.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1 is that the Defendant is the natural parent D.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.01.30 2017가단248482

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.11 2019가단156206

-대구지방법원포항지원 2020.06.04 2019가단5930

-인천지방법원 2019. 01. 30. 선고 2017가단248482 판결

-수원지방법원 2018.10.04 2018가단504155