beta
Text
1. The sales contract concluded on April 7, 2014 between B and the Defendant for the real estate indicated in the separate sheet is KRW 83,250,000.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) concluded a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on October 10, 2013, and received a loan of KRW 355,500,000 from the Small and Medium Business Corporation under a credit guarantee agreement.
B. B, the representative director of the non-party company, was jointly and severally guaranteed the debt owed to the plaintiff of the non-party company at the time of the conclusion of
C. On July 8, 2014, Nonparty Company and B caused a credit guarantee accident on the ground of “natural substances” and the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 181,411,843 to the Small and Medium Business Corporation on behalf of Nonparty Company and B on November 18, 2014.
Meanwhile, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 17, 2014 in the name of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “real estate”). B completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 9, 2014 to the Defendant on June 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sale”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. 1) Whether the instant sales contract was concluded between B and the Defendant ought to be examined prior to the determination of the nature and scope of compensation for damages, etc. of obligee’s right of revocation. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the date of the actual sales contract for the instant real estate was not on April 7, 2014, but on June 9, 2014, the date of registration of ownership transfer, respectively, as indicated in the real estate registration book.
2. As seen in the instant sales contract, deeming the date of the instant sales contract as April 7, 2014 is more favorable to the Plaintiff regarding the scope of compensation for value. However, insofar as the registration of ownership transfer has been completed on the real estate register, the procedure and cause thereof are presumed legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da91756, Mar. 27, 2008). As such, the presumption power of the registry is also limited to the entry of the grounds for registration, the date of the instant sales contract, as stated in the registry of the instant real estate.