logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.06.13 2018가단115092
사해행위취소
Text

1. The gift contract concluded on November 21, 2016 between the defendant and C concerning each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and C is 6,232.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As of March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an order for payment against C with the debtor for a payment order (the price for goods 2016 tea799). As of March 17, 2016, “C has issued an order for payment stating that “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and its delayed payment at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the order for payment until the full payment, and KRW 191,10,00 per annum.” The above order for payment was served to C on March 21, 2016, and confirmed as of April 5, 2016; C entered each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each share”) owned by it in excess of debt on November 21, 2016 into the gift contract (hereinafter “instant donation contract”); and the purport of each share transfer registration under the name of the National Health Insurance Corporation No. 1421, Dec. 16, 2016>

According to the above facts of recognition, C’s donation of each of the instant shares to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a creditor of C, as an act that deepens the status of excess of obligations.

B. According to each of the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of this case’s gift agreement, prior to the revocation of fraudulent act and the completion of the registration of creation of a mortgage over each of the instant shares D, the maximum debt amount of KRW 24,000,00,000, the establishment of a mortgage over each of the instant shares was completed. On December 14, 2016, it is recognized that the registration of creation of a mortgage was cancelled on December 14, 2016. Ordering the recovery of each of the instant shares itself due to the fraudulent act’s restitution would be unfair because it would restore to the portion that was not initially the joint security of the general creditors, and thus, it would be unfair.

arrow