beta
Text
1. As to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between Defendant B and Nonparty deceased C (Death on December 15, 2015), February 12, 2014.
Reasons
1. Determination as to whether the obligee’s right of revocation has occurred (determination as to the principal claim)
A. (1) On January 30, 2013, the Plaintiff of the preserved claim: (a) leased KRW 20,000,000 to Nonparty G (Death on December 15, 2015) on the due date for reimbursement of KRW 15% per annum; (b) on May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff established a collateral security to C; (c) lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff; and (d) on August 8, 2013, changed the maximum debt amount of the collateral; and (e) lent KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant’s spouse on August 14, 2013; and (e) the obligor’s fraudulent act and intent to cause damage to the said real estate in excess of the debt amount; and (e) concluded a registration to the effect that the Defendant’s claim for the said real estate was made with the Defendant’s spouse on February 12, 2014; and (e) concluded the purport of the instant claim for the registration of the claim.
In light of the above facts, the legal act of this case constitutes a fraudulent act because C already in excess of its obligation donated to Defendant B, which constitutes a case where joint collateral against the general creditor is reduced, and his intent of deception is recognized, and as long as C’s intention is recognized, the act of this case is presumed to be a bad faith of the Defendants, the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser.
Meanwhile, as a juristic act done by a beneficiary is not subject to creditor's right of revocation, the part seeking revocation of the gift contract concluded on September 1, 2015 between Defendant B and Defendant A is without merit.
B. As to the determination of the Defendants’ good faith, the Defendants asserted that C was donated to the Defendants in good faith by gathering the excess of the obligation upon the death of C. However, the legal act of this case was conducted before C’s death, and there is no evidence to reverse the presumption of bad faith. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.
2...