(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2019.07.25 2019가단11

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) 대전지방법원공주지원 2019.07.25 2019가단11

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty D seeking a loan of KRW 6.1 million with the Daejeon District Court 2018 Ghana1776. On November 13, 2018, the said court rendered a judgment that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6.1 million and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 7, 2018 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2018.

B. On November 26, 2018, D entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant as to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 40 million (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”) and, on the same day, completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage to the Defendant on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 7 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. D’s revocation of fraudulent act concluded a mortgage contract of this case with the Defendant to evade compulsory execution against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was also aware of this and received a registration of establishment of mortgage from D. Thus, the mortgage contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, should be revoked and restored to its original state.

B. The false conspiracy D entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant to evade compulsory execution. Since the instant mortgage contract is null and void as a false conspiracy mark, the establishment registration of mortgage should be cancelled.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of revocation of a fraudulent act, “justifiable act” subject to the obligee’s right of revocation refers to an act detrimental to the obligee by the obligor’s excessive status of the obligation by reducing active property or increasing the negative property, or by deepening that the obligor has already been in excess of the obligation. In addition, Supreme Court Decision 200 Decided January 12, 2012

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.07.14 2016나301828

-대전지방법원 2019.04.18 2018가단24001

-서울동부지방법원 2019.09.27 2019가단119474

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.09.19 2017가단34949

-전주지방법원 2018.11.13 2018가단8615