logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.21 2018가단502462
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiffs are creditors of D.

D With respect to the plaintiff, on December 3, 2013, the plaintiff A has a claim based on an executory notarial deed No. 2303 of the 2013 Gwangju Law Firm, and a claim based on an executory notarial deed No. 948 of 2014, May 23, 2014 by a notary public, and the plaintiff B, on September 22, 2015, a notary public has a claim based on an executory notarial deed No. 1523 of the 2015, a law firm as Gwangju Law Firm.

B. D has the right to refund the lease deposit.

D on May 2, 2016, 50,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the same year for the period of 50,000,000 with respect to G apartment 504, 1203 Dong-gu, Gwangju Mine-gu

5. From January 29 to January 27, 2018, each stipulated lease agreement was concluded, and the lease deposit agreed upon to E was paid.

C. The transfer of the claim for return of the lease deposit made D was revoked by fraudulent act.

D Around March 7, 2017, when a contract was concluded between the Defendant, a partner, and the Defendant to transfer the status of lessee under the above lease agreement, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking restitution after cancelling the said transfer agreement (hereinafter “instant transfer agreement”), and the court rendered a ruling to cancel the transfer agreement and notify E of the cancellation thereof on December 13, 201. The above ruling became final and conclusive around that time.

D Upon the judgment above, on December 14, 2017, a notary public drafted a promissory note notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating the Defendant’s acceptance of the Defendant’s compulsory execution in the event of nonperformance by setting the Defendant’s claim amount as KRW 58,00,000 by a law firm No. 965 of the 21st century’s General Law Office as KRW 2017.

E. Based on the above pertinent notarial deed, the plaintiffs seized each of the claims for the return of the lease deposit against D based on the instant notarial deed, and the lessor KRW 50,00,000.

arrow