beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 18,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 13, 2017 to July 9, 2018.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A through 6 above, Defendant B borrowed KRW 8,00,000 from the Plaintiff around August 18, 2017, and acquired KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff around September 13, 2017, and Defendant B transferred the claim stated in the separate sheet, which is the only property, to Defendant C around October 2017, and a notary public obtained authentication as set out in Article 309 of the 2017 Document.
According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 18,00,000 won and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from September 13, 2017 to July 9, 2018, which is the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the application for amendment of the purport of this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
Furthermore, the transfer of the claim stated in the separate sheet, which is the only property in the separate sheet, by Defendant B, to Defendant C while having borne the above obligation to the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor, and Defendant B’s intent to commit suicide is recognized, barring any special circumstances.
Therefore, the above assignment contract between the Defendants should be cancelled within the limit of 18,000,000 won as a fraudulent act, and Defendant C has a duty to notify Nonparty E that the above assignment contract was cancelled within the limit of 18,000,000 won.
2. Defendant C asserts to the effect that it is bona fide and has been transferred the claim to be repaid for the claim against Defendant C.
In a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act, the creditor who asserts the revocation of the debtor's bad faith has the burden of proof, but the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser does not have the burden of proving that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is bad faith, and the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is a bona fide person. The Supreme Court Decision 95Da51908 delivered on May 23, 1997, and April 24, 2001.