beta
Text
1. It was concluded on March 26, 2013 with respect to the share of 98% among the vehicles listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Nonparty B entered into a credit card transaction contract with Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. on December 4, 2007 and used the credit card and charged with the credit card price of KRW 10,01,034.
B. On May 31, 2013, Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. transferred the above claim against B to the Plaintiff, and notified the transfer of claim to B around June 3, 2013.
C. A motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) originally owned BA’s share of 99%, the Defendant owned a share of 1%, and the Defendant jointly owned it. However, B transferred B’s share of 98% of its own share to the Defendant on March 26, 2013 due to sale and purchase, and the Defendant’s share was changed to 1%, and the Defendant’s share was changed to 99%.
【Ground for Recognition: Each entry and the purport of whole pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5】
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the evidence evidence No. 9 of the existence of the preserved claim A, the Plaintiff’s claims against B acquired by transfer may be recognized as constituting 12,497,251 as of July 10, 2014, and thus, the preserved claim is recognized.
B. 1) The establishment of a fraudulent act is established. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of his own, and changing it into money easily for consumption or transferring it to another person without compensation, is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferor did not maliciously perform his duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Feb. 24, 2001). 2) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, it can be acknowledged that the automobile of this case was the only property at the time of transferring the share of this case to the defendant, since there is no particular property at the time of transferring it to the defendant, and therefore, the automobile of this case