logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2020.09.23 2020가단31524
사해행위취소
Text

The agreement between the defendant and the non-party C on November 27, 2015 regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet is 16.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Diplomatic Capital loaned 19 million won to C on August 19, 2011 as a secondhand loan.

However, KRW 18,853,428 of the principal has not been repaid, and as of April 3, 2020, the claim is equivalent to KRW 65,161,620 of the principal, interest, and provisional payment.

B. On May 20, 2016, DNA Capital transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff, and at that time notified C thereof.

C. C is the heir of the network E, and on November 27, 2015, entered into an agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). D.

On December 15, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the instant real estate on the grounds of a contract for partition concluded on November 27, 2015.

E. After that, around November 13, 2017, the Defendant cancelled the right to collateral security of KRW 65 million with respect to the said real estate, which was established on August 31, 2009.

(f) The deceased E had the Defendant, children G, H, and C as his spouse, and C’s inheritance shares are 2/9.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The agreement on the division of inherited property with respect to the nature of a fraudulent act is that the ownership of inherited property, in whole or in part, as to the inherited property provisionally owned by co-inheritors after the commencement of inheritance, becomes final and conclusive by either as a sole ownership by each inheritor or as a new co-ownership relationship, and therefore, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke the fraudulent act, and it constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, in principle, even in cases where the debtor in excess of the obligation already renounces his/her right to share of inherited property while holding a divided agreement on the division of inherited property.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on July 26, 2007

arrow