beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff has a claim for late payment amounting to KRW 1,797,620,446, total amount of KRW 330,797,950,723, and KRW 1,797,620,446, calculated on March 29, 2019, at the rate of 8% per annum from March 29, 2019 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 1,797,620,446, which is the date of subrogation repayment.
B. B On January 29, 2019, the land of this case was merged with the Defendant on February 13, 2019 with C 1,356 square meters and E 224 square meters prior to the annexation of the instant land.
A sales contract with respect to the purchase price of KRW 334,60,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) was concluded, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the Defendant on the same day.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Determination
A. The fact that B sells the land of this case, which is the only property in excess of the debt, to the Defendant does not conflict between the parties. Thus, the sales contract of this case constitutes an act detrimental to the general creditors of B including the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances, and the Defendant’s bad faith as the obligor and the beneficiary of B is presumed.
B. As to this, the defendant was unaware of the fact that the sales contract of this case constitutes an act of deception.
DaNN
1) Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the act of deception, in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his/her good faith. In such cases, whether the beneficiary is bona fide or not shall be determined in light of the empirical rule by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances or motive leading up to the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal, whether there are no special circumstances to suspect the conditions of the act of disposal, and whether there are objective materials supporting the normal transaction relationship, and circumstances after the act of disposal, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621 Decided July 10,