(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.29 2016가단802909

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) 수원지방법원 2018.05.29 2016가단802909

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties hold C Educational Meeting with the following: “C Educational Meeting: (a) KRW 19,920,00 for the Selection E; KRW 9,640,00 for the Selection F; KRW 2,298,075 for the Selection; (b) KRW 1,580,385 for the Selection; (c) KRW 6,000 for the Selection; (d) KRW 9,640,000 for the Selection; (e) KRW 9,880,00 for the Selection; and (e) KRW 10,120,000 for the Selection; and (e) KRW 2,2985 for the Selection; and (e) KRW 1,580,00 for the Selection; and (e) KRW 25,205 per annum from the following day to the Selection; and (e) the amount paid from March 10, 2015 for each of the above money.”

(C) The Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na63117, Seoul High Court 2015Na204972, hereinafter referred to as "relevant case").

C. On May 4, 2015, the Association entered into a contract of donation with the Defendant and the Defendant for the gift of 282 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Accordingly, on May 8, 2015, the Association completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on the ground of the said donation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. On August 31, 2015, the Defendant’s assertion (Appointed Party) and the designated parties known that the instant gift contract was concluded as a fraudulent act, which received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court of the relevant lawsuit. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2016, which was one year after it was over, the limitation period was over and illegal.

B. In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the creditor, which is the starting point of the exclusion period, becomes aware of the cause for the revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement for the right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that he would prejudice the creditor, so it is insufficient to simply say that the debtor has conducted a disposal of the property

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.13 2014가단146638 (1)

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2021.04.27 2021가단116

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.23 2014가단39556

-전주지방법원군산지원 2015.05.21 2014가단6751

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.09.16 2015가단3979