beta
Text
1. It was concluded on April 25, 2017 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the non-party Sam YoungMT and the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was sentenced on June 1, 2016, and became final and conclusive on July 29, 2016, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act filed against the Non-Party Sam YoungMTTTT (hereinafter “TTTTTT”) et al.
three hundred and twenty thousand won and thirty-three,252,051 won among the 620,06,093 won and thirty-five percent per annum from December 3, 2014 to October 6, 2015, respectively, shall be paid to the Plaintiff at 12 percent per annum from December 17, 2014 to October 6, 2015, and at 15 percent per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. On December 5, 2016, Sam YoungMT completed registration of initial ownership relating to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.
C. On April 25, 2017, Sam YoungMT entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant on the real estate stated in the separate sheet and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage.
SamchiMTT was declared bankrupt by the District Court on December 7, 2017 (2017Hahap1079), and the trustee in bankruptcy took over the lawsuit of this case.
[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10
2. Determination
A. The so-called fraudulent act, which is an act subject to avoidance under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, as to the cause of the claim, “an act of having knowledge that the debtor causes damage to any bankruptcy creditor” includes not only the so-called fraudulent act of absolute reduction of the debtor’s general property, which is a joint security of all creditors, but also the so-called biased act which is contrary to the fairness with other bankruptcy creditors by affecting the debtor’s property relationship as well as the act of favorably reducing the debtor’s general property, such as repayment to a specific creditor or provision of security against a specific creditor. However, the debtor should have known that the debtor
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da214885, Sept. 25, 2014). In the instant case, each entry of evidence Nos. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13 is included.