beta
Text
1.(a)
Attached Form
On October 5, 2018, 1/4 shares of each real estate listed in the list were concluded between the Defendants and D.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. E applied for a payment order against D (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014j. 35161), and “debtor (D) shall pay 17,278,218 won to creditors (Co., Ltd. E) and 4,719,00 won, at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to D on May 13, 2014, and the original copy of the payment order was served to D on May 28, 2014.
B. On February 27, 2019, Co., Ltd. transferred the above obligation to the Plaintiff, and the notice of assignment was served to D around that time.
C. F, who is the father of D, died, and his heir is the Defendants, D, and G, who are children.
On October 5, 2018, the Defendants, D, and G entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”) with the Defendants to own each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”). As for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants was completed on November 21, 2018 as the receipt of No. 125995 on November 21, 2018.
At the time of the division consultation of this case, D was in excess of its obligation.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
(a) If the claims of the creditor of the preserved claim have been established before the fraudulent act, the transferee may exercise the obligee’s right of revocation even if the claims are transferred, and in such cases, even if the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims have been met after the fraudulent act, the transferee cannot be an obstacle to the obligee’s right of revocation
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5822 delivered on June 29, 2006). According to the basic facts acknowledged earlier, E had a claim against D with respect to the said amount at the time of the instant split-off agreement, and the Plaintiff was subject to the transfer of the said claim to set up against the Plaintiff.