beta
Text
1. Defendant Academy’s 28,240,000 won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 16, 2015 to October 8, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to Defendant A Educational Association
A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 to 6 evidence No. 1.
1) On July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff: C Housing Redevelopment Cooperatives (hereinafter “Redevelopment Cooperatives”) on July 17, 2013
(3) the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) from
(2) On July 1, 2009, after purchasing KRW 210 million, the Plaintiff purchased and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its own future on July 29, 2013. Meanwhile, on July 1, 2009, Defendant A church (hereinafter “Defendant church”) set the instant real estate from D to KRW 20 million for lease deposit, KRW 1.2 million for monthly rent (excluding value-added tax), and the lease term as of August 26, 201, and thereafter occupies and uses the instant real estate until now.
3) However, inasmuch as the sales contract for the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the redevelopment association was fraudulent act, the Defendant church was ruled against the Plaintiff, which was subject to a lawsuit seeking its revocation (Seoul Central District Court 2013dan227561) but was rendered a favorable judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2014Na11603, etc.), and the above favorable judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 2015, and the above favorable judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 2015. (B) In the event a creditor files a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff and the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, the effect of the revocation is limited to the relationship between the creditor and the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, and thus, even if the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser bears the obligation to reinstate or compensate for the equivalent value, this is merely between the legal effect arising from the revocation of the fraudulent act and the obligor’s legal relationship arising therefrom, and it does not constitute a revocation of the obligor’s property retroactively.