beta
Text
1. As to shares of 1/2 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. It was concluded on January 10, 2014 between the Defendant and C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for damages (2013da71970) against C and two other parties, and was sentenced to the judgment of March 11, 2014 that “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 24,971,48 won and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 5% per annum from July 21, 2013 to March 11, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. C is the owner of each of the respective shares of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On January 10, 2014, C entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, a co-owner, for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On the same day, C entered into the transfer registration for shares to the Defendant.
C. At the time of the instant sales contract, C was insolvent in excess of positive property.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7, Gwangju Metropolitan City head of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, results of reply to taxation information by the director of the Gwangju District Tax Office, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the basic facts prior to the determination on the cause of the claim, C’s conclusion of the instant sales contract with the Defendant on the instant real estate in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor, and C’s injury due to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and thus, the Defendant’s bad faith as a beneficiary on this point is presumed also presumed.
As to this, the defendant jointly purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet with D, and among them, the owner of the real estate of this case is D, and D has trusted the name of the real estate of this case to ASEAN, so it is difficult to recognize that D has held the title trust with D only by the evidence submitted by the defendant.