logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.03.28 2017나311266
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be determined as follows: “A fact that has remitted KRW 1 million to the court of first instance is recognized, but the fact that has remitted KRW 1 million to the court of first instance is recognized” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, Jan. 7, 2000). The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the defendant emphasizes in the court

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant did not know of the fact that the obligor A was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant provisional sales contract and the sales contract, and that C paid part of the instant real estate sales price to A with the money remitted from the Defendant, and repaid part of the Defendant’s loan obligations to A’s national bank, and that the instant real estate sales price was not an unfair salt, and that the Defendant did not know that each of the instant contracts was a fraudulent act at the time of the instant provisional sales contract and the sales contract.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the obligor bears the burden of proving that the obligor is maliciously a creditor, but the beneficiary is not a creditor with the burden of proving that the beneficiary is acting in good faith. If the obligor’s act of disposal of the property constitutes a fraudulent act, it shall be based on objective and acceptable evidence, etc. If recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, and it shall not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act or the preceding act only with the unilateral statement of the obligor or beneficiary or any statement that is merely a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015).

arrow