(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2017.08.31 2017나20305

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2017.08.31 2017나20305

사해행위취소

Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. On June 15, 2015, the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B regarding each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “real estate No. 1”) (hereinafter “mortgage No. 1”) among the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B, the “mortgage No. 1 and No. 4” as a joint collateral, but the “mortgage No. 1 and No. 4” as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 and the separate sheet No. 2 as a joint collateral. However, the judgment dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the mortgage contract regarding the first real estate No. 1 as claimed by the Plaintiff, and accepted the claim for cancellation of the mortgage contract (hereinafter “mortgage No. 4”) on September 2, 2015, and the Plaintiff did not appeal against the said paragraph, while Defendant B appealed appealed as to the said paragraph (2).

Therefore, the part of the claim of the above paragraph (2) and the simple co-party to the above paragraph (1) is transferred to the trial, but it is not subject to the trial.

2. The reasoning for the judgment of this court on the premise facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case in which “Defendant C” and “Defendant D” are used in each “C” and “D”, thereby citing them in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant legal principles

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Defendant’s claim for the loans to E, a joint guarantor of the instant loan agreement, is a fraudulent act. The Plaintiff sought revocation of each of the above contracts on the ground that the instant 4, 5, and the instant sales contract is a fraudulent act. The Plaintiff sought compensation for the amount within the scope of the loan principal, excluding KRW 59,080,741, interest and overdue interest, KRW 2,914,410, total amount of KRW 61,95,151, and KRW 61,000,000,000, and KRW 357,796, which appears to have accrued after the conclusion of each of the instant contract and the instant contract for substitute payment, out of the loans to the Defendant E, except for KRW 357,796,00,00,000,

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가단5203680

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.17 2015가단5068907

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.22 2017가단5231921

-창원지방법원 2016.12.22 2016가합52548

-광주지방법원목포지원 2020.01.08 2019가단50930