logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.10.24 2018나57172
사해행위취소
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiffs falling under the following cancellation and payment order:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. M: (a) on March 15, 2012, under the name of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, G-gun, Ulsan-do, 831 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground buildings were acquired; (b) subsequently, M decided to remove the above ground buildings and newly construct a lending house.

H An association established the right to collateral security with the debtor F and the maximum debt amount of KRW 975,00,000 on March 15, 2012, using the instant land and buildings, as the joint collateral.

The above ground buildings were destroyed and lost on June 2012, and were excluded from the joint collateral of the above right to collateral security.

B. On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff A lent KRW 300,000,000 to F. On the same day, Plaintiff A prepared a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement between F and F on January 31, 2013. As to the instant land, Plaintiff A created a right to collateral security of KRW 300,000,000 with the maximum debt amount.

On the other hand, Plaintiff A received KRW 140 million out of the above loans from H association at the auction procedure for the instant land, etc. as seen below between August 27, 2014 and October 28, 2014.

C. On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff B remitted KRW 94,020,00 to F through Plaintiff C, and on the same day, Plaintiff B set the right to collateral security of KRW 120,000 with respect to the instant land.

Plaintiff

C around March 2013, around F, lent KRW 100 million to F, and on March 26, 2013, set the right to collateral security of KRW 100,000,000 with respect to the instant land.

E. During the construction of 14 units of the instant building on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant loan”), M, in collusion with the H association’s staff members, was investigated into the facts of having received the loan by means of false cutting off the appraisal value.

M in August 2013, according to W-based counsel’s legal advice, with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment No. 1 (hereinafter “T”) and the real estate listed in [Attachment No. 2 (hereinafter “Uho”) in the [Attachment No. 1] of this case, M entered into a payment contract with Defendant D in the name of F.

arrow