logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.17 2015가단25941
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff extended 40,00,000 won to the defendant's wife B on March 9, 2007, and 30,000,000 won on November 16, 2007, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2010Da321615) against B (Seoul Central District Court 2010Da321615) and subsequently filed a lawsuit against B on October 28, 2010, "the defendant (referring to the defendant B) paid 76,81,312 won to the plaintiff and 70,000,000 won, calculated at the rate of 21% per annum from August 19, 2010 to the date of complete payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On November 24, 197, the Defendant’s mother C completed the registration of ownership transfer to F with respect to each real estate listed in Section 1, 3, and 4 of the attached list, and with respect to each real estate listed in Section 2 of the same list, E, respectively. On August 19, 208, the Defendant’s mother C completed the registration of ownership transfer to F with respect to 1/2 of the real estate listed in Sections 3 and 4 of the attached list.

C. B completed the registration of ownership transfer for C-1/2 shares among the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table Nos. 3 and 4 of the same list on March 16, 2010 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). D.

B On September 19, 2012, on September 19, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the Defendant on September 13, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, while having exceeded the obligation, donated the instant real estate, which is one of its husband’s sole property on September 13, 2012, to the Defendant, was a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligees, the Plaintiff asserts that B and the Defendant seek cancellation of the equivalent compensation and transfer of ownership, such as the written claim, by cancelling the gift agreement as of September 13, 2012 between B and the Defendant

The defendant purchased the real estate of this case and paid the price in full, and is the mother.

arrow