beta
Text
1.(a)
With respect to the claims stated in the attached Table 2 between the Defendants listed in the attached Table 2 and the Non-Party Corporation.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From October 22, 2014 to February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied steel materials to Non-Party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”). As of March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods against Non-Party Co., Ltd is KRW 217,021,939.
B. On March 6, 2015, as shown in the attached Table 2, the non-party company transferred the claims against the non-party D&D Co., Ltd and the non-party Q to the Defendants listed in the attached Table 2 as wages and retirement allowances, notified the transfer of claims to the above D&D Co. and Q. On March 19, 2015, as listed in the attached Table 3, the non-party company transferred the claims against the non-party R and Q to the Defendants listed in the attached Table 3 under the same name, and notified the transfer of claims to the above R and Q. On March 6, 2015, as listed in the attached Table 4, the claims against the non-party D&D Co., Ltd. were transferred to the Defendants listed in the attached Table 4 under the same name as the claims against the non-party D&D Co., Ltd. as indicated in the attached Table
C. On November 3, 2014, the non-party company was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures in the Changwon District Court Decision 2014 Ma1073 Decided November 3, 2014, and was in excess of the obligation at the time of transferring each of the above claims to the Defendants, such as being decided to discontinue rehabilitation procedures on March 21, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the non-party company’s conclusion of each of the above assignment contracts over three times in excess of the obligation and deepens the excess of the obligation to the general creditors as a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors. Considering the amount of the obligation owed by the non-party company to the plaintiff, etc., the time when the above assignment contract was concluded, and the amount of the assignment of the obligation, the non-party company
3. Thus, the above assignment contract between the non-party company and the defendants should be revoked as a fraudulent act.