logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.07.08 2019가단5639
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on August 27, 2018 between the Defendant and C.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On December 19, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with D on a fixed basis as of December 19, 2010 (the subsequent change on several occasions, and the change on December 19, 2018), and entered into a credit guarantee agreement with D as of December 19, 2010. D’s spouse jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to be borne by D under the said credit guarantee agreement. D received a loan of KRW 70 million from E Union as collateral under a credit guarantee agreement issued by the Plaintiff on December 19, 208. Subsequent, D continued to extend the term of loan, and the Plaintiff was unable to pay the principal and interest of loan on December 19, 2018, and thus, the Plaintiff lost its profits due to failure to perform the mortgage agreement with the Defendant on December 28, 2019 as to the instant real estate loan (the instant mortgage agreement with the Defendant 200 million won or less).

3) At the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract, C had the FF association’s obligation with the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million against the Plaintiff as well as the reimbursement obligation against the Plaintiff; (i) the obligation with the maximum debt amount of KRW 63 million against the G association; and (ii) the obligation with the maximum debt amount of KRW 120 million against the HF; and (iii) the obligation with respect to the HF. On the other hand, C’s active property with the instant real estate and the instant real estate and the instant real estate and the instant real estate, the shares of KRW 116/704 out of KRW 54 square meters, the shares of KRW 238/758 out of the 410 square meters in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, J. 410 square meters, and the shares of KRW 238/758 out of the 65 square meters in the value of active property. However, C had no dispute over the purport of the entire pleadings.

(b) the revocation of the fraudulent act has occurred.

arrow