logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.26 2014가합545836
사해행위취소
Text

1.(a)

The agreement on donation of KRW 100,000,000 entered into on April 5, 2012 between Nonparty D and Defendant C shall be revoked.

(b).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties, etc. 1) Bankruptcy Debtor A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”).

(2) On December 21, 2012, the Financial Services Commission was sentenced to the bankruptcy of the Seoul Central District Court on October 29, 2013, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee of A. (2) Nonparty E from June 23, 2006 to February 19, 2010, and Defendant C from June 23, 2006 to September 11, 2008.

3) Defendant B is the wife of Defendant B, and the network D is the mother of Defendant C. 4) The network died on November 12, 2013, and the remainder of the inheritors (F, G, and H), other than Defendant C, among the deceased inheritors, submitted a written refusal of inheritance to the Seoul Family Court on February 7, 2014 and accepted the written refusal of inheritance (201D) on April 29, 2014, and Defendant C submitted a written conditional acceptance report to the Seoul Family Court on February 11, 2014, and was accepted on July 7, 2014.

(2014 Mono 1329) b.

The Plaintiff’s claim for damages against E and Defendant C, etc. 1) The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against 13 former executives and employees of E and Defendant C, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court (2014Gahap570610, hereinafter “instant claim”).

(2) The Plaintiff filed a suit. 2) The Plaintiff, E, and Defendant C, etc., as a director of the Plaintiff from January 15, 2007 to September 30, 2010, neglected to investigate the credit of the borrower and his joint guarantor while performing loan business, neglected to take other measures to preserve the borrower’s debt despite uncertainty of the borrower’s ability to repay the debt, provided real estate short of security value as security, and incurred damages not to recover the loan due to violation of the duty of due care as a good manager, such as neglecting the feasibility review, and Defendant C made a false report on the settlement of accounts of A around September 208 and paid the excess amount of A corporate tax and resident tax.

arrow