(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.11.30 2014가단11364

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) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.11.30 2014가단11364

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 August 2013, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with D (former C; hereinafter “D”) and F, the former husband, as a crime of adultery. D was indicted for a crime of adultery in the Chuncheon District Court’s original branch around June 2014, and was pronounced guilty on August 12, 2014 by the said court.

B. Around August 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D and F for a claim for divorce, etc. against D and F, the Chuncheon District Court Branching 2013Ddan10321, and on September 23, 2014, the said court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “D shall pay consolation money of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff up to November 30, 2014. If D delays in payment of the said amount, it shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the date following the due date to the date of full payment.” The said ruling became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On June 10, 2014, with respect to the instant automobile owned D, the registration of the creation of the mortgage (hereinafter “instant mortgage”) with the mortgagee as the debtor D, and the mortgage (hereinafter “instant mortgage”) with the mortgagee as the defendant was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 and 5 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D concerns that compulsory execution from the Plaintiff, who is the damage claim, should be effected by the Plaintiff, and it constitutes a fraudulent act to complete the registration of the creation of mortgage of this case on the instant automobile, which is the only property of the Defendant under excess of the obligation.

Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case concluded between the defendant and D should be revoked within the limit of five million won, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure to change the value of the mortgage of this case to D by five million won.

In addition, the defendant had lent money to D for about 15 years with D, and D and F for D.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단219468

-광주지방법원 2015.10.23 2015가단27915

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.03.25 2014가단10729

-부산지방법원 2020.02.13 2019가단327560