beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is fully paid KRW 140,00,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its payment from January 17, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) contracted out by Nonparty D, the owner of Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun; and (b) on January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 485 million to D with funds necessary for the construction of Da lending.
B. On May 17, 2012, D’s wife Nonparty E completed the registration of initial ownership relating to Cloan 304 and 402. On May 21, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty F, the father of the Defendant, by receiving payment in kind from D on May 21, 2012 and completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty F, the father of the Defendant. Likewise, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty G (hereinafter “F and G”) on the same day after Cloan 304 was paid in kind.
C. On the other hand, D’s payment in substitutes 304 and 402 on the part of the defendant.
At the same time, on May 21, 2012, with regard to each of the above loans on May 21, 2012, another creditor I against the Plaintiff’s wife H and D as a joint mortgagee, and the maximum debt amount of 1.2 billion won. D.
Around January 2013, the Defendant: (a) obtained a loan of KRW 70,00,000 from the Central Saemaul Bank of Korea, each of which was offered as security from the Plaintiff and paid to the Plaintiff each of KRW 70,000,000; and (b) agreed to cancel the registration of creation of a neighboring establishment in the name of H; and accordingly, (c) concluded on January 24, 2013.
At the same time, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled, and at the same time the establishment of a mortgage was completed with the Central Saemaul Treasury of anti-mortgage, the maximum debt amount of KRW 91,000,000.
E. Nonparty J, a other creditor of D, filed a lawsuit against G and F on the ground that the Defendant’s side received payment from D in lieu of 304 and 402 from D constituted a fraudulent act, thereby constituting a fraudulent act. On January 17, 2014, the said court ruled that G and F paid KRW 230 million to J as compensation for the value on the ground that the said legal act constituted a fraudulent act.