logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.24 2015가단22373
사해행위취소
Text

1. The contract to establish a mortgage between the Defendant and C on January 20, 2014 is concluded regarding real estate stated in the attached list.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with Seoul Northern District Court 2012Gahap107555, and the said court rendered a judgment on April 11, 2013 that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 270 million with interest of KRW 20 million and 20% per annum from October 26, 2012 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C On January 20, 2014, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with the obligor C, a mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”). On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) as the receipt of No. 6556 on January 21, 2014.

C At the time of concluding the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant, it is in excess of the obligation without any specific property as of the date of closing argument.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), and the act of an obligor having already been in excess of his/her obligation to provide real estate to any one of his/her creditors, the sole property of which is his/her claim for the purport of the entire pleadings, as security for claims, is a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring special circumstances. In cases where an obligor's act of offering security to a third party objectively constitutes a fraudulent act, the obligor's bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been committed by the beneficiary at the time of the juristic act, barring special circumstances, the obligee may cancel the juristic

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, C is one of the creditors of the instant real estate, which is the de facto only property under a debt excess.

arrow