(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단48682

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) 부산지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단48682

사해행위취소등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B (C) in Busan District Court Decision 2006Gaso659582 and received a favorable judgment against the court that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 5,321,043 and delay damages." The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. D (1942 was born in 1942, hereinafter “the deceased”) married the Defendant (1949) with E, B, and F, and died on August 19, 2015.

C. On January 26, 1996, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the grounds of sale as of December 28, 1995.

After the deceased's death on September 10, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the defendant's future due to the consultation and division of inherited property (hereinafter "consultation division of this case") on August 19, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion (cancellation of fraudulent act and restitution) that the Defendant transferred 2/9 of his share of inheritance among the instant housing to the Defendant through the instant consultation division constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a general creditor of B.

Therefore, the above consultation division, which is a fraudulent act, should be revoked, and for the restoration to original state, the defendant must implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the 2/9 share out of the housing of this case.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. The key issue in this case is whether the defendant can be seen as a bona fide beneficiary, that is, whether the defendant knew that it would prejudice the creditor B in the course of the consultation division between B and B.

B. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

In other words, the defendant maintained a normal marital life with the deceased for a long time and engaged in normal marital life.

Specifically, the defendant is against the deceased on August 13, 1971.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가단5096500

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.10.16 2018가단64460

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단120104

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.01 2017가단5157535

-부산지방법원 2017.03.16 2016가단339623