logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.05.16 2017가단7536
사해행위취소로 인한 소유권말소등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on June 30, 2014, the repayment date was set as June 30, 2017, and loaned KRW 80 million to B; (b) on October 13, 2016, B lost the benefit of time by delaying the payment of the said loan obligation.

On the other hand, B, while a divorce between the Defendant and the Defendant, concluded on November 3, 2016 the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant property division agreement with respect to the instant real estate, which constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.

2. (1) According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 2, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan to B is held, and the Plaintiff gets a divorce by agreement with the Defendant on October 31, 2016, and on November 3, 2016, the ownership transfer registration based on the instant property division agreement is recognized.

(2) However, there is no evidence to prove that the instant property division agreement led to the excess of the obligation or deepens the excess of the obligation.

(3) In addition, even though a debtor who has already been in excess of his/her obligation transfers a certain property to his/her spouse as division of property and reduces the joint security for the general creditor, barring any special circumstance to recognize that the above division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, it shall not be subject to revocation by the creditor as a fraudulent act.

However, since it cannot be seen as a legitimate division of property with respect to excess portion beyond the above considerable degree, the burden of proving that it can be subject to revocation, and there are special circumstances to deem that it is an excessive division of property beyond the above considerable degree, the Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on July 28, 200.

arrow