(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.03 2014나41763

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.03 2014나41763

구상금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with A to provide credit guarantee services for KRW 90 million equivalent to KRW 90 million of the loan, setting the guarantee period from the date of the above contract to September 4, 2013, with a view to obtaining a loan of KRW 100 million from a national bank.

B. As a credit guarantee accident occurred due to natural disasters against A’s national bank, the Plaintiff, on August 28, 2013, on the part of the National Bank’s performance of guaranteed obligation, subrogated the National Bank to pay for KRW 91,100,120,00 in total, KRW 90,000,00 in total, and KRW 91,10,120 in total.

C. On July 4, 2013, A completed the registration of the change of the owner in the instant construction machinery registered under his/her name.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without a dispute, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff asserts that, one month prior to the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident, A entered into a sales contract on the instant construction machinery with the defendant, and completed the change of the owner in the future of the defendant, but the above sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act and thus should be revoked. Since the defendant is a malicious beneficiary, he/she is obligated to complete the procedure for cancellation of the registration of change of the owner in the name of the defendant on the instant construction machinery and to deliver the instant construction machinery to A.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that since the construction machinery of this case purchased the construction machinery of this case and transferred title trust to A, the construction machinery of this case terminated the title trust agreement on July 4, 2013, the termination and return of the above title trust between the defendant and A do not constitute a fraudulent act.

3. Determination

A. The act that a title trustee of real estate has completed the registration of ownership transfer of a trusted real estate as a performance of a duty to return according to an act of trust does not constitute a fraudulent act as an existing performance

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da35884 Delivered on August 24, 2001.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원김천지원 2015.02.11 2014가단10799

-울산지방법원 2018.01.19 2017가단60873

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.22 2014가합510052

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2020.10.23 2020가단30606

-서울동부지방법원 2014.06.20 2013가단115647