(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.20 2017가단207393

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.20 2017가단207393

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) One Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”)

(2) On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 9,000,000 to B on a yearly interest rate of KRW 22.9% (interest rate of KRW 39%) and on a monthly equal installment repayment of principal and interest for 36 months, but the Plaintiff lost the benefit of time due to delay in repayment of the principal and interest. (2) On June 26, 2014, Nonparty Company transferred the said loan claim against Nonparty Company B to the Plaintiff.

On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff received an order for payment against B (Seoul Western District Court 2014Gaso633087), stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 9,55,340 won and 7,812,810 won among them at a rate of 34.9% per annum from June 1, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and the above order for payment was finalized around that time.

B. B and the Defendant’s sales contract on June 5, 2012 is KRW 135,00,000 for the apartment of this case, which is one of the only real property with the Defendant, but the sales contract is KRW 120,000 for the apartment of this case.

However, on July 5, 2012, the sum of the principal and interest on the loans of financial institutions secured by the apartment of this case was KRW 90,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) that the purchaser succeeded to and deducted from the balance, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant apartment on July 5, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion B concluded a sales contract on the instant apartment, which is the only real estate, with the status of excess of the debt, and thus, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the instant sales contract should be revoked. As a result, the Defendant, who is the beneficiary, was the beneficiary of restitution to its original state, to the Plaintiff KRW 7,812,910, out of the amount of KRW 1

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.18 2017가단211071

-서울남부지방법원 2013.11.29 2013가단2461

-대전지방법원 2016.12.20 2016가단9855

-인천지방법원 2015.11.27 2014가단73595

-광주지방법원 2016.12.13 2016가단514300