logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.01.11 2015가단531926
사해행위취소
Text

1. The sales contract concluded on September 23, 2015 between the Defendant and B is revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor B used credit purchase and credit card loan loan (9 million won, August 18, 2014, and KRW 10 million, March 20, 2015) by using credit cards issued by Hyundai Card Co., Ltd., and delayed credit card payment and credit card loan repayment on October 20, 2015.

On December 11, 2015, Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. transferred its claim against Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., and on July 20, 2016, Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. transferred its claim against Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor and notified it to B around that time.

As of December 22, 2015, debt B as of December 22, 2015 is KRW 16,793,273 and delay damages for KRW 16,03,598.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1-6, 10, 15 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. On September 23, 2015, the facts of recognition B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, who is one’s own pilot, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is one’s sole property (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 9, 11-14 Evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) An act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and replacing it with money which is easily consumed by the debtor, was made by sale to meet a legitimate repayment to some creditors;

Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's intention of deception is presumed to be presumed to be a fraudulent act against the creditor at all times, and the burden of proof that the purchaser did not have bad faith is the beneficiary.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Da1535, Oct. 4, 1966). At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, B had been already liable for repayment of principal and interest on credit card loans to Hyundai Card Co., Ltd.

arrow