beta
Text
1. Nonparty D
A. It was concluded between Defendant B on October 10, 2013 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 16, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty E for the construction of a newly built multi-household house at KRW 90,00,00,00 for the construction cost on each land listed in [Attachment 1] List 1 through 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “F land”). On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into the said construction contract with Nonparty D to bear 50% of the construction cost. On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the said construction work, and newly constructed an aggregate building listed in paragraph 5 (hereinafter referred to as “F building”).
B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D (Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Gahap5884) against D, and the above court rendered a judgment on September 13, 2013 that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 495,000,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 17, 2013 to the date of full payment.” The Defendant appealed the above judgment (Seoul High Court 2013Na64924), but the above court dismissed the entire appeal against D on November 5, 2014.
C. On October 10, 2013, D concluded a mortgage contract with Defendant B on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage as shown in the same list. On the same day, D concluded a mortgage contract with Defendant C on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage as described in the same list.
[Ground of recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff's assertion D did not bear obligations against the defendants, but entered into each of the contracts of this case. Since each of the contracts of this case was a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor of D, the contract of this case must be revoked, and the contract of this case was concluded in the name of the defendants according to each of the above contracts.