beta
Text
1. Defendant A and B jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff as to KRW 271,819,904 and KRW 271,819,417 among them.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A and B
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(b) Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. As indicated in the grounds of appeal No. 1), as indicated in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee agreement with the Defendant Company regarding the receipt of loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea. Defendant B jointly guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation under each of the above guarantee agreements. When the Defendant Company was unable to repay its obligation due to the occurrence of a guarantee accident that lost its profit on March 2, 2017, the Plaintiff repaid its obligation for loans to the Industrial Bank of Korea on behalf of the Defendant Company on May 19, 2017. (2) Defendant B entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant C on February 10, 2017 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the maximum amount of debt as to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 30,000,000, as well as the lease on a deposit basis, as the lease on a deposit basis with the Seoul District Court’s registration office No. 972, Feb. 10, 2017 to February 29, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease on a deposit basis”).
3) Defendant B was in excess of the obligation at the time of each of the instant contracts. [The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds of recognition, each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings
B. Each contract establishing the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and Defendant C is obligated to implement each procedure of registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, as restitution for the cancellation of a fraudulent act
C. The claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation of the preserved claim 1 can be viewed as, in principle, a fraudulent act.