logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.16 2016가단5113712
사해행위취소
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) for KRW 94,377,525 and KRW 91,916,378 among them, from May 9, 2016 to September 2016.

Reasons

1. Plaintiff’s claim against the remaining Defendants except Defendant D

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

4. Grounds for Claim

D. Defendant D’s portion excluded

(b) Judgment by public notice: Defendant 1 and 2 (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

(c) Judgment deeming confessions: Defendant 3 (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D

A. (1) On August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. on a credit guarantee agreement, and the network E, a joint guarantor of the credit guarantee agreement, entered into a donation agreement with Defendant B, a beneficiary for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, in the state of insolvency due to excess of debt due to the natural body on October 22, 2015, prior to the loss of the benefit of this natural body. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with Defendant B, a beneficiary. On October 22, 2015, the Republic of Korea District Court in the name of Defendant B, Yangyang-dong District Court in the name of Defendant B, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 25, 2015 with Defendant D, which is the subsequent purchaser, and the establishment of a mortgage was completed on November 25, 2015 under the name of Defendant D, which concluded a joint collateral agreement with the Plaintiff as to each of the instant claims.

3) On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff performed the guaranteed obligation by acting on behalf of the Bank of Korea in 91,916,378 won. (4) The Network E was aware that the common collateral against the general creditors is decreased due to the disposal of each of the instant real estate, and thus, it is apparent that the deceased E was malicious, Defendant B and D was legally presumed, and the burden of proof that there was no bad faith is against the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser.

B. Defendant D’s judgment on Defendant D’s bona fide assertion is to be made to the network E who had resided and known to the same apartment area and the lower floor for more than 10 years.