beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 19, 2009, the Plaintiff’s mother C, D, and E issued and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note No. 3663 as to the said promissory note, respectively, with a face value of KRW 450 million, the due date on July 10, 2009, and the place of payment and place of payment, respectively, and a notary public drafted a deed of promissory note No. 3663 as to the said promissory note.
B. Between F and F on January 2, 2010, C entered into a sales contract with F to sell the purchase price of H apartment 501 on the land other than G G (hereinafter “instant apartment”) for KRW 295 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) on the land other than G, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and KRW 30 million on the date of the contract, and KRW 80 million on the date of the contract, and KRW 80 million on February 4, 2010, KRW 175 million on the intermediate payment and KRW 175 million on February 26, 2010, and KRW 10 million on April 20, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment to F on April 21, 2010.
C. C paid KRW 115 million to the Plaintiff out of the above purchase price received from F. On July 31, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with I for the Plaintiff to lease KRW 302,000,000,000 for a fixed period of KRW 65 million and twenty-four months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). On August 21, 2010, the Plaintiff paid a deposit of KRW 65 million (hereinafter “the instant lease deposit”).
On February 20, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for provisional attachment against the Plaintiff on February 20, 2014 with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kadan1138, stating that “C’s KRW 115 million paid to the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act as a donation, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 15 million as compensation for the value following the revocation of fraudulent act.” The Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against the Plaintiff on the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case, which the Plaintiff had against I (hereinafter “application for provisional attachment”).