beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) from March 25, 2017 to KRW 180,892,607 and KRW 66,234,872 among the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)
A. Indication of claims: as shown in the Attached Form “the cause of claim after modification”.
B. The judgment deeming confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Claim against Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”)
A. The Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 200 million to D on December 24, 2013; (b) around November 20, 2014; and (c) Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above loan obligations; (b) Defendant B owned the land E-Gun land land with a maximum of KRW 500 million at the market price on April 14, 2017; (c) however, Defendant B received the registration of ownership transfer from the Industrial Bank of Korea with approximately KRW 1.85 million at the Industrial Bank of Korea; and (d) Defendant B received each of the above loan obligations with KRW 430,000,000,000 at the F Association; and (e) Defendant C received each of the above loan obligations with a total of KRW 430,000 as stated in the separate list of real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (e) Defendant B received each of the above loan obligations with a total of KRW 381,000 from the Daejeon District Court.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer registration”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1-10 and 13 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. The sale of each real estate listed in the separate sheet by Defendant B, who is in excess of one debt, to Defendant C is an act to make the Plaintiff, who is a general creditor, impossible to fully satisfy the Plaintiff’s claim by making the joint security in shortage more than one story, and barring special circumstances, it is presumed that Defendant B, the debtor, was a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, and Defendant C, the beneficiary, was aware of this.
Therefore, the instant sales contract between the Defendants should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant C shall be restored to its original state.