beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 45 million with respect to subparagraph 2 of the Da underground floor (hereinafter “D house”) in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “Seoul-si”) and from May 15, 2011 to May 14, 2013, and paid KRW 45 million with respect to the lease deposit. Although the lease term expires, the Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment on December 17, 2013 against Nonparty C, who did not return the deposit, by filing a lawsuit for the claim for the lease deposit as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch of 2013No37639.
B. C entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on November 15, 2013 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) during the period for filing a claim for the above lease deposit, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-7's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion that C's selling of the instant real estate to the defendant in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors, including the plaintiff, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed. Thus, the sales contract of this case must be revoked within the limit of KRW 45 million, which is the plaintiff's preserved bond, and the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 45 million to the plaintiff as restitution.
B. (1) According to the fact that the existence of the preserved claim is recognized, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of the lease deposit against C was already established before C sells the instant real estate to the Defendant, and thus, the obligee’s right of revocation is the preserved claim.
(2) The “act detrimental to the obligee” subject to the obligee’s right of revocation as to the establishment of a fraudulent act is an act for the purpose of property right, and thereby, the obligor’s passive property exceeds the obligor’s active property or exceeds the obligor’s obligation.