beta
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 defendant is a citizen of the United States of America who is a party to the dispute.
B. On May 26, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with D to set the amount of loans (limit) to KRW 20 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 11% per annum, and interest rate of delay interest rate of KRW 18% per annum. B entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on November 7, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the guarantee of KRW 26 million per annum. (2) The Plaintiff filed an application against B for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of the guaranteed debt amount to the Seoul District Court, Jinjin-gun, Seoul District Court, Seoul District Court 2015Ra25. (B) On January 23, 2015, the said court rendered the said order on January 23, 2015, “B was served to the Plaintiff on KRW 19,630,917 and its 19,077,370 won per annum from January 24, 2015 to KRW 15 per annum.
C. 1) E obtained a decision to permit the sale of the instant real estate in the procedure for compulsory auction by official auction by the head of the Gwangju District Court, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 1405 on February 16, 2009. 2) After which, as to the instant real estate, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant on October 24, 201 as the receipt No. 4756 on April 5, 2011 as the receipt No. 4756 on April 4, 2011, as to the instant real estate, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 27, 2011 by the same registry office as the receipt No. 13057 on October 24, 2011 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of the parties’ assertion falls under the act of B’s selling the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of the debt, and thus, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act.