(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.01.11 2018가단7146

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.01.11 2018가단7146

소유권이전등기말소(사해행위취소)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D, on April 24, 2017, concluded a credit loan agreement with the Plaintiff and received a loan of KRW 45,000,000 in accordance with the said agreement on April 25, 2017. As of April 11, 2018, D, as of April 11, 2018, bears the Plaintiff’s obligation to lend the principal amount of KRW 41,779,629, 3,840,136, total of KRW 45,619,765.

B. On March 22, 2018, D completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the property division agreement dated March 16, 2018 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

At the time of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the apartment of this case, D was the only real estate.

C. Around March 2018, the Defendant filed a divorce report with D.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a fraudulent act, considering that even if the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment under the pretext of division of property while the agreement with D was married with D, considering that D was the only property in excess of the debt at that time, the said act is a fraudulent act.

In addition, D has donated the apartment of this case to the defendant on the ground of the division of property following the divorce between agreement in order to avoid debt demand, and therefore D is null and void due to the false representation of agreement.

3. Determination

A. Division of property following divorce on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act is a system in which the nature of the liquidation of common property formed through mutual cooperation between the parties during marriage is not supported by the other party.

Therefore, even though the debtor who has already been in excess of his/her obligation has transferred a certain property to his/her spouse as a result of the reduction of the joint security for the general creditor, it can be recognized that the division of property exceeds his/her considerable degree in accordance with the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act.

참조조문

-민법 제839조의2 제2항

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.03.24 2015가단45028

-창원지방법원마산지원 2016.07.21 2015가단9892

-광주지방법원 2018.03.08 2017가단17271

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.01.13 2015가단6674

-부산지방법원 2020.01.16 2018가단334752