(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가단5096500

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가단5096500

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against B with the Seoul Central District Court 2016 tea3009, and the said payment order became final and conclusive as is, “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 15,561,647 won and any of its KRW 4,257,300 at the rate of 15% per annum from March 5, 2016 to the date of full payment.”

B. C (1938, hereinafter “the deceased”) married with the Defendant (1942) and went under the sleep, D, E, F, G, and five others, but died on February 12, 2013.

C. On October 26, 1992, the Deceased acquired the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the grounds of sale as of December 20, 1991, and as above, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the division of inherited property held on February 12, 2013 (hereinafter “instant division”) as of September 2, 2013, after the Deceased’s death.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion B transferred 2/13 of his share of inheritance among the real estate in this case to the Defendant through the instant agreement division constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a general creditor in B.

Therefore, the above consultation division shall be revoked within the scope of the joint collateral value (8,692,430 won) and the amount of the Plaintiff’s credit (15,561,647 won) against B, whichever is less, within the scope of KRW 8,692,430, whichever is less. Since the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage was revoked after the above consultation division and the registration of the transfer of ownership, the above 8,692,430 won should be restored by the method of the Defendant’s direct payment to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. The key issue in this case is whether the defendant can be seen as a bona fide beneficiary, that is, whether the defendant would have divided the consultation between B and B.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.01 2017가단5157535

-부산지방법원 2017.03.16 2016가단339623

-부산지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단48682

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단120104

-울산지방법원 2020.09.17 2019나14400