logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.07.23 2015가단30564
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 48,00,000 to B, 5.9% of the interest rate; and (b) October 18, 2014 of the loan maturity (in the case of the first agreement, it shall be extended after October 18, 2013) respectively.

B shall pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 41,00,00 as of December 29, 2014, plus KRW 45,343,193, and KRW 193 as of December 29, 2014.

B. B completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 11, 2013 regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

In addition, on December 26, 2013, B completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation (hereinafter “instant donation”) under 72227 of the receipt of the original state support from the Chuncheon District Court on the same day to the Defendant.

C. B and the Defendant were legally married couple who completed the marriage report on July 25, 1995, but the agreement was married on February 9, 2010, and thereafter reported the marriage again on May 2, 201, and again divorced on May 9, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and No. 6

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is the real property of B, that is the only property in fact, that the instant donation was made immediately before the loss of the benefit of time due to the delinquency in the payment of the loan, and that the Defendant was the spouse of B, the instant donation of this case led to a lack of joint security for creditors, and that B had the intention of harming the Plaintiff, the obligee, and the Defendant, the other party to the donation, is presumed to have been malicious.

Even if the gift of this case was based on the division of property between B and the Defendant, the divorce between B and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act as a division of property, which goes beyond a reasonable scope, by the agreement between division of property between B and the Defendant.

Therefore, the gift of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant should be revoked.

B. The instant real estate was determined as B.

arrow