logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.19 2015가단213890
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Establishment of a fraudulent act;

A. On May 14, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap17364 against the Non-Party Newan Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Newan Plus”) seeking the payment of the agreed amount of KRW 3,50,000,000 and damages for delay, and received a favorable judgment. The said judgment became final and conclusive on October 22, 2014.

B. A disposition 1 of the debtor and the beneficiary filed a lawsuit against the non-party C corporation seeking payment of the agreed amount of KRW 60 million from November 26, 2008 to September 30, 2010 with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Na4767, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 50,000 per annum from September 26, 2008 to September 30, 2010, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on September 30, 201, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 27, 2011. 2) A transferred the claim against the above C corporation (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the non-party C corporation on September 29, 2014. Around that time, B notified it to the Defendant on April 15, 2015.

C. On December 5, 2011, an excessive amount of debt was dissolved as a dormant company pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and was pending on May 30, 201 by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on December 30, 2014. At the time of transferring the instant claim to B, not only the Plaintiff’s above-mentioned judgment liability but also the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay a large amount of debt, such as the agreed amount of debt to Nonparty 1 Mutual Savings Bank and Seoul Sanitary Co., Ltd., and on the other hand, there were no particular assets other than the instant claim,

【Ground of recognition】 No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The key issue of the instant case is that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant claim to B, the sole property of which is the instant claim under the status of excess of the obligation by Shin Plus, to the general creditors, including the Plaintiff, may cause or deepen the shortage of common security

arrow