2015 Doz. 207413

A

B

September 27, 2016

October 27, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 60,000,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the written correction of the claim and the correction of the cause of the claim in this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who runs gold-type manufacturing business under the trade name of "C", and the defendant is the representative director of the non-party D corporation and the non-party F who was the actual representative of the non-party E corporation.

B. On April 4, 2011, the Plaintiff provided F with an open space of KRW 50,000,000 and leased KRW 150,000 to F, and remitted KRW 150,000 to F, to the account designated by F. The Plaintiff thereafter, on July 26, 2012, paid KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff with respect to the said loan by August 1, 201, and written a notarized deed (No. 2206, a notary public) with respect to F and E’s joint and several sureties (No. 200,000).

D. Meanwhile, on June 1, 2012, E transferred the ownership of Non-Party 1, who is the wife of F, to the non-party 1, the ownership of the 1.8 tons of the 1.8 tons of the 1.8 tons of the 1.8 tons of the 1.8 tons of the 2012, and the 1.27 November 201, 201, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against I for the revocation of the 1. The 2011, the above sales contract was revoked, and the I was sentenced to the cancellation of the 2013rd District Court's 201Ga26597 of the 2013. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 18, 2013.

E. On December 4, 2013, immediately after the judgment on revocation of fraudulent act of this case was rendered, I created a mortgage of KRW 60,000 on the instant automobile of Nonparty Yangyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd., the debtor, the defendant, and the bond value of KRW 60,000 (hereinafter “the mortgage of this case”). There is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In collusion with I knowing the situation of the lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act between the Plaintiff and I, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 and delay damages therefrom, since the Defendant, in collusion with I, set up a mortgage on the instant automobile immediately after the judgment on revocation of fraudulent act was rendered, received the loan from the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant, thereby committing a tort against the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

However, solely on the circumstance that the debtor’s name of the instant mortgage was the defendant or the loan was received as the account in the name of the defendant, the defendant committed the instant mortgage in collusion with the plaintiff, even though he was aware of the situation of the lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act between the plaintiff and I, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, according to the overall purport of the evidence and the pleadings, the mortgagee of the instant mortgage is I, and the defendant is only 22 years old at the time of the establishment of the instant mortgage as I’s children, and there is a high possibility that the defendant would have lent I the debtor’s name, etc. without detailed knowledge of the situation of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, and only it appears that F and I, a parent of the defendant, established the instant mortgage and used the loan under the direction of F and I.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, assistant judge and police officer;

Judge Park Sang-hoon

Promotion as Judge