208 Single 95668 Claims, etc.

Credit Guarantee Fund

Seoul Mapo-gu 254-5

송달장소 광주 북구 동 XXXX-X 4층(소관 □□□지점)

○○○○

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

1. 박○○ (XXXXXX-XXXXXXX)

Gwangju North-dong X-x-x

XXXXXX-XXXXXXX)

Gwangju North-dong, Nowon-gu, Seoul

XXXXXX- XXXXXXX)

광주 북구 동 XXX AED아파트 XXX동 XXXX호

XXXXXX- XXXXXXX)

광주 북구 동 아파트 XXX동 XXXX호

5. Stamendo (xx-xxx) x;

Gwangju Northern North-dong Do-X

6. 탁○○ (XXXXXX-XXXXXXX)

광주 북구 동 XXXX- X aa아파트 XXX동 XXX호

7.100 (XXXXXX-XXXXXXX)

Chungcheongbuk-gun District x x 201

8. 100 (XXXXXX-XXXXXXX)

Chungcheongbuk-gun District 】 Rix EEd 101

9.0100 (XXXXXX-XXXXXXX)

Gwangju North-dong 】 XX- XX

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Kim Shin-won

June 18, 2009

July 16, 2009

1. As to the Plaintiff’s 119,937,940 won and double gold 8955,000 won from November 7, 2008, and gold 30,000,000 won from November 14, 2008, 15% per annum until February 4, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. A. A. The agreement on the transfer and takeover of bonds on August 18, 2008, which was cancelled on August 18, 2008, by transferring KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant Nam-○, and the Defendant Jeon-○, out of the purchase price bonds of real estate listed in the separate sheet concluded between Defendant Jeon-○ and Defendant Jeon-○, and Defendant

B. Defendant South-○○ and Defendant Jeon-○ expressed their intent to transfer each of the above claims to Defendant Jeon-○ through the distribution schedule prepared on December 22, 2008, in accordance with the distribution schedule prepared on December 22, 2008 by Gwangju District Court 2008, with respect to each of the dividend payment claims of KRW 6,930,835, and to the non-party Republic of Korea (a public official of the Mine District Court under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea).

3. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant OO○, Defendant Gamb○, Defendant Gamb○, Defendant Gamb○, Defendant Jeon-○, and Defendant Eb○ is all dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, the part which was tension between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Park○, Defendant Jeon-○, Defendant Jeon-○, Defendant Jeon-○, and Defendant Jeon-○ is borne by each of the Defendant Park○○, Defendant Jeon-○, Defendant Jeon-○, Defendant Nam-○, and Defendant Jeon-○, and the part which was tension between Defendant Jeon-○ and Defendant O○, Defendant Park○, Defendant Park○, Defendant Jeon-○, Defendant Jeon-○, and Defendant Jeon-○, are borne by the Plaintiff respectively.

5. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. Judgment identical with paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article;

2. A. ○○○ and Defendant OO○, Defendant Gamb○, Defendant Gamb○, Defendant Gamb○, Defendant Bamb○, and Defendant Bamb○.

between ○ and ○, the purchase price claim of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, KRW 10,00,000;

The ownership of Defendant Park ○○, 1.5 million won, the ownership of Defendant Park ○, 1.2 million won, and the ownership of Defendant Jeon ○.

In August 18, 2008, the credit transfer and takeover system of August 18, 2008, about KRW 21 million, reverted to Defendant Lee ○○○○.

(b) cancel the drug.

B. Defendant ○○○, Defendant Gab○, Defendant Gab○, Defendant Gab○○, Defendant Dob○, and Defendant ○○○○

○ Dividend made on December 22, 2008 in the distribution procedure of Gwangju District Court 2008 another District Court 2008

Under the table, 3,465,417 won to be distributed to Defendant OO○ pursuant to the table, and the distribution by Defendant OO○ was received by Defendant OO○

5,198, 126 won, 4,158,501 won to be distributed by Defendant ○○○, and the amount to be apportioned by Defendant ○○○.

A claim for dividend payment of KRW 7,277,377, and KRW 7,623,918, which the defendant Lee ○-○, who is entitled to dividends

The declaration of the transfer of claims shall be made and the non-party to the Republic of Korea (deposited officials of the competent Gwangju District Court) shall be made

In addition, notification to the effect that each of the above claims was transferred to Defendant Jeon Soo-○.

1. Claim for indemnity;

원고는 피고 박○○과 사이에 2002. 6. 20. ▦▦▦▦은행의 대출과 관련된 보증원금 1억 200만원 인 신용보증약정, 2007. 11. 6. 거래처 물품대금 지급을 위한 약속어음금 채무와 관련된 보증원금 3000만 원인 신용보증약정을 각 체결하였고, 피고 전○○는 피고 박○○의 원고에 대한 구상금채무를 연대보증한 사실, 피고 박○○이 대출금을 갚지 아니하고 약속어음금을 지급기일에 결제하지 아니하여 원고는 2008. 11. 7. ▦▦ ▦▦은행에 금 89,720,477원을, 2008. 11. 14. 약속어음 수취인인 ▦▦▦▦▦ 주식회사 에 금 3천만 원을 각 대위변제한 사실, 원고는 대위변제 채권의 집행보전을 위하여 금 1971,170원을 지출한 후 금 586,130원을 회수하여 대지급금 잔액이 금 385,040원인 사 실, 원고는 2002. 6. 20.자 신용보증건과 관련하여 금 168,000원을 회수하였고, 위 회 수된 대위변제금의 대위변제일로부터 회수일까지의 원고 소정의 손해금율에 의한 확정 손해금은 423원인 사실, 원고가 정하는 ○○손해금율은 2008. 11. 17.부터 현재까지 연 15 % 인 사실 등은 당사자들 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 갑 제1 내지 6호증(가지 번호 포함) 의 각 기재를 더해 보면 이를 인정할 수 있으므로, 피고 박○○· 피고 전○○는 연대 하여 원고에게 금 119,937,940원 [= 119,552,477원 {= 89,552,477원 (= 89,720,477원 - 168,000원) + 30,000,000원} + 385,040원 + 423원] 및 이중 금 89,552,477원에 대하여 는 2008. 11. 7.부터, 금 30,000,000원에 대하여는 2008. 11. 14.부터, 각 이 사건 소장 부본 최후 송달임일이 기록상 명백한 2009. 2. 4.까지는 약정이율인 연 15 %, 그 다음 날부터 완제일까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 소정의 연 20 % 의 각 비율에 의한 금 원을 지급할 의무가 있다.

2. Requests for the revocation of fraudulent act;

(a) Basic facts

(1) On July 18, 2008, Defendant Jeon-dong, Gwangju Northern-gu, Dong-gu, 2008, to the largest ○○ on the part of Defendant Jeon-dong.

It sold a trade price of 287,500,000.

(2) On August 18, 2008, Defendant Jeon Soo-○ transferred 20 million won out of the above sales price claim to Defendant Nam-○○, to Defendant Ook-○, to Defendant Park Jong-○, to which KRW 1.5 million was 1.5 million was 1.2 million was 1.2 million, to Defendant Cho Il-○, to Defendant Jeon-○, to which Defendant Jeon-○, to which KRW 2.2 million was 2 million was 2 million was 1.2 million was transferred to Defendant Jeon-○, to Defendant Jeon-○, and to whom the fact was 2.2 million was 2 million won was 2 by content-certified mail to the least ○○ on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence A No. 7-1 and 2]

B. Determination

(1) The existence of preserved claims

In principle, it is required that the claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen before the act was conducted, but it is highly probable that the claim has already been established at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim would be established in the near future, because it has been realized in the near future. In the near future, the claim can also be a preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation. As seen above, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for indemnity against Defendant ○○ on November 7, 2008 and November 14, 2008, while the assignment date of the claim in this case was August 18, 2008, while the basic legal relationship had already occurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○○ at the time of the transfer date, and the Plaintiff's claim for indemnity against Defendant ○○○○ was established in the near future, and thus, it is probable that the Plaintiff's claim for indemnity against the Defendant ○○○ was actually established.

(2) The establishment of the fraudulent act and the intention to commit the act

(A) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, where it is difficult to determine which evidence is superior in view of the principle of property rights guarantee under the Constitution, the original rules of contract freedom, the registration and possession under the Civil Act, the presumption of legality of false representation and lawsuit for objection against distribution, balance between the burden of proof and the transactional safety, etc. of the creditor, it is reasonable to deem that the creditor has the burden of proving the bad faith of the beneficiary (see, e.g., Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Da516, Apr. 9, 2009). In particular, the debtor cannot refuse the performance of his/her obligation on the ground that there is another creditor in the performance of his/her obligation, and even if another creditor's joint pecuniary claim is reduced by transferring it to the existing creditor in lieu of repayment of obligation under the circumstance of excess of obligation, the debtor's intent to prove that the debtor's joint pecuniary claim in collusion with the other creditor is not a 20-party creditor, but a 20-party creditor's intent to transfer it.

(B) The part on Defendant South ○○

In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, if the defendant Nam-gu transferred 18 million won to ○○○○○○○○ as a branch of the defendant Park Jong-dong on August 16, 2008, and operated an IE Licensed Real Estate Agent in Gwangju-dong on a joint and several surety of the defendant Park Jong-dong on August 16, 2008, the defendant Nam-gu agreed in advance to collect money from 18 million won for a three-month interest at the time of transferring the claim for the purchase price of this case to ○○○○○○○○○○ on August 18, 2008. According to the above agreement, the defendant Nam-gu transferred 18 million won to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the head of Ga-○○○○○○○○, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for payment of money to 200 million won was revoked and its obligation to reinstate it to 2000 another creditor.

(C) The part on Defendant O’O○

While there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant ○○○○○ in collusion between Defendant ○○ and Defendant ○○○○○○○ and had the intent to harm other creditors of Defendant ○○○○○○ by subrogation and transferred the claims by means of subrogation, Defendant ○○○○○ may, on April 20, 2008, recognize the fact that Defendant ○○○ received KRW 10,00,000 from Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○, an insurance solicitor, upon demanding the loan of business funds, and upon considering the fact that Defendant ○○○○’s request for the loan of business funds, Defendant ○○○○ was deposited as the head of Defendant ○○○○○○, an employee of Defendant ○○○○○○○○, and that Defendant ○○○○○ made efforts to raise business funds of Defendant ○○○○○○, it is sufficiently acceptable to collect his claims by means of transfer from Defendant ○○○○, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ○○○○ is without merit.

(D) The part on Defendant Park ○-○

Considering that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and Defendant 2’s 2-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-77-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7

(E) The part on Defendant ○○

On the contrary, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B, who in collusion between Defendant B, and Defendant B, had the intent to harm other creditors of Defendant B, and had transferred the claim by subrogation. On the other hand, if Defendant B’s statement of evidence No. 6 added the overall purport of the pleading, Defendant B, who borrowed KRW 1.2 million from Defendant B, on December 5, 2007, under the name of Defendant B, who is one’s own wife, need for business, and Defendant B, ○○ borrowed KRW 1.2 million on December 15, 2007. Defendant B, on December 15, 2007, may only recognize the fact that Defendant B, who prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 1.2 million against Defendant B, ○○○ on December 15, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B, which is without merit.

(F) The part on Defendant Jeon Soo-○

In light of the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○ in collusion with the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 16,50,500,500,500 won on February 15, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 26,50,000,000 won on March 5, 208.

(G) The part on Defendant Jeon Soo-○

In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 8, Defendant 2 transferred 00 million won to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ prior to the lapse of the entire pleadings, and Defendant 2 transferred 5 million won from December 17, 2007 to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s passbook, and leased 12 million won out of 10 million won of the insurance money paid on July 30, 2008 to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, upon the lapse of 1 million won of its own claim, the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of 8 million won prior to the transfer of dividends was revoked on August 18, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of 20 million won prior to the issuance of dividends to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

(h) The part on Defendant Lee ○-○

On the contrary, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant ○○○○ in collusion between Defendant ○○ and Defendant ○○○○○○○ and had the intent to harm other creditors of Defendant ○○○○○ by subrogation, but rather, if Defendant ○○○ appears to add the overall purport of the pleadings to the statement of evidence Nos. 9, Defendant ○○ may recognize the fact that the total sum of outstanding amounts due to the supply of construction materials to Defendant ○○○○ from March 14, 2006 to July 24, 2008, sold and not recovered to Defendant ○○○○○, a customer of Defendant ○○○○○○, and the total amount due to the outstanding amounts due from the supply of construction materials to Defendant ○○○○○, a sum of 22,157,23 won. In light of such fact-finding, even though this fact-finding was the creditor of Defendant ○○○○, the relationship between Defendant ○○ and Defendant ○○○, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ○○○.

(c) Public opinion;

In a case where the ownership of property is transferred after a provisional attachment is made against the property, such transfer of ownership is relatively null and void only in relation to the provisional attachment against the other creditors of the person liable for the provisional attachment, and it is valid in relation to the other creditors of the person liable for the provisional attachment. Thus, in the execution Section of the above property, other creditors of the person liable for the provisional attachment may not participate in the distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da5737, Nov. 13, 1998).

돌이켜 이 사건에서 보건대, 갑 제7호증의 1, 갑 제11호증의 기재에 의하면, 피고 박 ○○, 피고 이○○, 피고 전○○, 피고 전○○, 피고 탁○○, 피고 오○○, 피고 남○○ 은 2008. 8. 18. 피고 전○○로부터 합계 금 1억 2천만 원의 채권을 양수한 사실, 원고 는 피고 박○○, 피고 이○○, 피고 전○○, 피고 전○○, 피고 탁○○, 피고 오○○, 피고 남○○의 위와 같은 채권양수가 있은 후 피고 전○○에 대하여 이 법원 2008카 단9886호로 채권가압류를 한 사실, 위 최○○은 부동산매매대금 116,757,963원을 이 법원 2008년 금 호로 공탁하였으며, 이 법원 2008타기호로 배당절차가 진행된 사실, 2008. 12. 22. 배당기일에서 피고 박○○, 피고 이○○, 피고 전○○, 피고 전으 ○, 피고 탁○○, 피고 오○○, 피고 남○○, 가압류채권자인 주식회사 ▦▦▦▦▦(서울 중앙지방법원 2008카단호 채권가압류 청구채권 금 216,766,363원)에게 각자 채권 액에 따라 위 공탁금을 안분배당한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하 면 이 법원은 원고에 대한 관계에서 위 채권양수는 유효함을 전제로 원고를 배제하고 채권액에 따른 배당을 한 것으로 보인다.

On the other hand, in the event that, with respect to the amount to be distributed to the transferee of the claim, the transfer of the claim is revoked as a fraudulent act after the court made a provisional disposition prohibiting the payment of the dividend, the distribution procedure may not be readily concluded that the deposited dividend has yet to be terminated until the deposited dividend is paid to the deposited person. Thus, the effect of the creditor revocation does not affect the debtor's legal relationship with the debtor and the beneficiary. Thus, the re-distribution recovered from the debtor by the creditor's revocation of the fraudulent act and the claim for restitution is treated as the debtor's liability property and does not acquire any right directly to the debtor. In light of the above, it is reasonable that the deposit should be additionally distributed to the other creditors who received a demand for distribution in the auction procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da64310, May 14, 2009), and the plaintiff's claim against the transferee of the claim against the defendant ○○, as seen above, even if the plaintiff's claim against the transfer of the claim against the defendant ○○○.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Park Jong-○, the defendant Jeon-○, the defendant Jeon-○, and the defendant Jeon-○ is justified, and all claims against the defendant O-○, the defendant Park Il-○, the defendant Park Il-○, the defendant Cho Il-○, and the defendant Lee Il-○ are dismissed as all of the claims are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim Dok Kim

List

【Indication of One Building】

Gwangju North-dong Xx 1 East-dong reinforced concrete structure (replaced concrete)

Apartment of the 18th floor

【Indication of Land Subject to Site Right】

City of 20,462 m

【Indication of the building on the exclusive ownership】

The 7th floor of reinforced concrete structure 131.3182m of reinforced concrete structure 704

[Rate of Site Right]

52.7687/20 of the title to the site of ownership.