beta
Text
1. The contract to establish a right to collateral security on January 25, 2013 between the Defendant and C on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet is established.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In 205 and 2015, the payment order against C and his spouse D was finalized, stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff, D shall pay KRW 236,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
(Resan District Court 2005 tea41946, 2015 tea829). (b)
C On January 25, 2013, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only real estate owned by it (hereinafter “instant real estate”), C entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant as to the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million (hereinafter “instant contract”), and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Defendant on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the whole purport of the pleading
2. On January 2015, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit after the lapse of one year from the date the Plaintiff had known that the conclusion of the instant contract and the establishment registration of a neighboring establishment on the real estate in the name of the Defendant was completed for the extension of the prescription period. The instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that the exclusion period expires.
In the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement for creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient simply by the fact that the debtor committed a disposal act of the property, and it is not possible for the creditor to fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already in the situation where the legal act would prejudice the creditor, and further, it is known that the debtor had the intention to mislead the creditor.