(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가단5128802

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가단5128802

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. C is the representative director and the director of A from August 26, 2004 to March 18, 2007, and the plaintiff is the trustee in bankruptcy of A, and the defendant is the wife of C.

B. On April 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking KRW 820,000,000 as damages (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap5104) by asserting that C had committed an illegal act, such as unfair loans, while holding office in A, and the said lawsuit is still pending in the said court.

C. C deposited KRW 24,00,000 from his/her own deposit account in the name of the Defendant (in the following cases, the instant donation) with the amount of KRW 24,00,000 from August 18, 201.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As to the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant gift, the Defendant, at the latest around April 2013, became aware of the instant gift in the absence of any specific property C, and the instant lawsuit was filed one year thereafter, and the period of exclusion is unlawful.

B. In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the obligee became aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee became aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the obligor merely knew of the fact that the obligor performed a disposal act of the property, and it is not sufficient to satisfy the claims solely by the fact that the legal act was an act detrimental to the obligee, and that the legal act was not sufficient to satisfy the claims completely due to the lack of joint security of the claim or lack of joint security already in the circumstances where the obligor had been aware of the intent to harm the obligee, and it cannot be presumed that the obligor knew of the objective fact of the fraudulent act.

Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5855 Decided April 26, 2013, etc.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.04.07 2015가단228327

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.30 2014나18383

-대법원 2017.08.24 2016다277828

-창원지방법원통영지원 2016.07.21 2016가단362

-대전지방법원공주지원 2015.11.05 2015가단20512