logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.09.07 2016가단30008
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Recognizing facts B, on November 17, 2001, the registration of ownership preservation on the instant real estate was completed.

B was granted loans from the Plaintiff respectively in the amount of KRW 10 million on September 17, 2009, KRW 20 million on June 12, 2013, and KRW 10 million on October 29, 2013.

B On October 24, 2016, on October 24, 2016, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate was completed to the Defendant on October 19, 2016.

B from November 27, 2016, the repayment of principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff was delayed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the donation of the instant real estate, the only property of which was the Defendant, under the condition that B bears the obligation of loans to the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff, should be revoked by fraudulent act, and even if it is not a fraudulent act, it constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy through false divorce.

As to this, the defendant transferred the ownership of the real estate of this case with consolation money and division of property in divorce with B, it did not constitute a conspiracy, false representation or fraudulent act, and the defendant did not claim to the effect that it constitutes a bona fide beneficiary.

B. Whether there was false conspiracy B and the defendant filed a marriage report on October 2, 191. However, on November 1, 2016, they reported a divorce (Evidence No. 1 to 4), except the plaintiff's assertion, there is no ground to recognize the divorce between B and the defendant or the transfer of ownership to the real estate of this case as a false conspiracy, and therefore, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit.

C. (i) Division of property in divorce of legal doctrine as to whether or not a fraudulent act is committed shall contribute to the maintenance of the other party’s livelihood at the same time as the other party’s property is liquidated and distributed by means of the liquidation and distribution of the real common property that the married couple had in the marriage. However, it is intended to compensate for mental damage (defensive materials)

arrow