beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 237,052,645 as well as 20% per annum from March 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. Indication of claims: It is as shown in the Attached Form “Cause of Claim”.
(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the act of providing part of the instant real estate, which is the sole property of the Defendant Company and the Defendant D and the Defendant E, as collateral, with respect to the one-third share of each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant B, and each of the instant mortgage agreements concluded between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company on July 1, 2014, and the Defendant D and the Defendant E on July 15, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the instant mortgage agreements”). As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act, the cancellation and restitution of each of the instant real estate registered under the name of the Defendant Company and the Defendant D and the Defendant E, respectively.
B. Determination 1) In order to become a fraudulent act, the requirements are to bring about the reduction of the joint security of other general creditors by allowing the debtor to be in excess of his/her obligation and to obtain preferential reimbursement from other creditors only in comparison with other creditors. Thus, in order to determine whether the debtor's act of providing security has become a fraudulent act, it is necessary to examine the debtor's property status and clarify whether the debtor's act of offering security has exceeded his/her obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da55656, Apr. 25, 200). 2) The case was returned to the instant case, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant B had already been in excess of his/her obligation at the time of entering into each of the instant collective security contract, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff'
Rather, this Court’s 1-2, 1-2, 2-2, 8-1 through 65, respectively, and the whole purport of the arguments.