beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
The Plaintiff had a claim against G for the amount of KRW 93,122,00 for the purchase of goods. However, on February 10, 2017, G entered into a sales contract with the Defendants as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is one of its own property, and entered into a sales contract with the Defendants, and thus, each of the above sales contracts shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. The Defendants are obligated to compensate for the amount equivalent to their restitution.
Judgment
An act detrimental to a creditor who is the object of a creditor's right of revocation refers to a juristic act aimed at a property right, and thus, the act refers to an act in which a debtor's passive property exceeds active property or his/her excessive debts are added (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da27903, Aug. 27, 2002). The burden of proving the debtor's insolvency at the time of a fraudulent act is the creditor who asserts that such a juristic act constitutes a fraudulent act.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da32016, Aug. 23, 2007). Despite this court’s request for proof over several times with respect to the insolvency of G, the Plaintiff does not prove any further without submitting necessary and appropriate evidence. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone exceeds the positive property under each of the above sales contracts between G and the Defendants on February 10, 2017.
The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the excess of the obligation was omitted (the Plaintiff submitted a preparatory document as of September 6, 2018 after the closing of argument, and it is difficult to conclude that each real estate listed in the attached list is the only property of G or exceeds the positive property even if it is based on the content of the auction case attached to the Plaintiff, the entire certificate of real estate registration matters, and the same applies where it is difficult to conclude that each real estate listed in the attached list exceeds the positive property).
Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit.