(영문) 전주지방법원 2014.05.15 2013가단33326

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) 전주지방법원 2014.05.15 2013가단33326

사해행위취소 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 8, 2008, the Plaintiffs jointly and severally leased KRW 250 million to C on August 8, 2008, and on August 8, 2009, the due date for repayment was determined and lent to C, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. On July 23, 2008, B completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring establishment with regard to the Plaintiff Thai-do Co., Ltd., the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, and the debtor C.

C. B, May 2, 2013, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000, and the debtor B, completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of the creation of the neighboring district of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate is the only property of B as the sole property of B, and the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract between B and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiffs, the obligee.

B. As a result of the fact-finding conducted by the court on the head of Seongdong-gu in the previous week, the fact-finding conducted by the court on the head of Seongdong-gu in the previous week is indicated only as to the property located in Jinjin-gu in the previous week in 2013. The sole fact is that the instant real estate is the only property in B, and it is insufficient to recognize whether B was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant contract to establish the right to collateral security, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it,

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.07.14 2015가단5530

-창원지방법원 2016.01.19 2015가단76595

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.10.26 2017가단102368 (1)

-서울남부지방법원 2016.03.04 2015가단226506

-서울동부지방법원 2014.10.10 2014가합1902