logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.11.13 2018나2034627
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the court of first instance

However, some of them shall be used or added as follows:

[Supplementary part] On the second and second pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 8th written “1. 7 January 2013” was added to “1. 28 November 2012.”

The 5th day below the 2nd day of the judgment of the first instance shall be " November 18, 2012" and " November 28, 2012."

Part II of the judgment of the first instance shall read "Account Number C" with "Account Number J".

The 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the "large Cargo" and the "large Cargo" shall be applied.

[Supplementary Part] The 5th six pages of the judgment of the court of first instance added "each entry in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3" to the following.

In the 8th following the 8th day of the judgment of the first instance, “B has withdrawn all KRW 395,00,000,” and the following [In this respect, in the case of the instant account opened through the real name verification procedure under the real name verification procedure, even if the Defendant, the account holder, has the right to claim the return of deposit as the party to the said deposit contract, barring any special circumstance, it is related to the relationship between B and the Defendant, the debtor, and the Defendant, the account holder of the instant account, as the party to the said deposit contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). As such, it is reasonable to view that B and the Defendant, as the debtor, have agreed with the intent of holding the ownership of the deposit claim and taking profits from the management thereof. Thus, the title trust agreement was concluded between B and the Defendant with respect to money remitted to the Defendant’s instant account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da232982]

2. The decision of the court of first instance is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

arrow