logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.07.23 2020가합11547
부인의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The debtor A (hereinafter “debtor”) was the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and the person who was the husband of the defendant, and the defendant was paid KRW 320,000,000 from the defendant on February 17, 2017, when the debtor agreed to divorce by agreement with the defendant, on October 4, 2016, the registration of transfer of the share of 99% among D 2014 E300 Mic vehicles under the debtor’s name (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). From December 6, 2016 to January 11, 2017, the debtor paid KRW 320,000 to the defendant.

B. On January 16, 2017, the debtor married with the defendant.

C. Since August 21, 2019, the debtor had completed the registration of transfer in the future of the defendant with respect to the share of 1% among the instant automobiles.

On August 27, 2019, the instant company filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Suwon District Court 2019hap170, and received a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures and to appoint a custodian from the said court on September 25, 2019.

E. On October 10, 2019, the debtor filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures (hereinafter “instant application”) with Suwon District Court 2019dan166, and on October 24, 2019, upon receiving a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures and to appoint a custodian from the above court (hereinafter “instant decision to commence rehabilitation procedures”), the debtor deemed the Plaintiff as the debtor’s custodian.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant transferred the property to the Defendant from October 4, 2016 to August 21, 2019 is giving up his right to claim a division of property following the divorce between the obligor and the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim for the denial of the said transfer by the instant lawsuit is practically exercising the right to claim a division of property under Article 839-2 of the Civil Act. The said right to claim a division of property is a two-year period from the date when the obligor and the Defendant have divorced.

arrow