logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단34795
사해행위취소
Text

1. As to motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet:

A. The sales contract concluded on March 21, 2014 between the Defendant and Nonparty C is concluded between the Defendant and Nonparty C.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 17, 2012, C rendered a judgment on the instant notarial deed and related litigation (1) to the Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff shall lend KRW 50 million to C on July 17, 2012, and C shall pay KRW 50,000,000 on August 30, 2012, and KRW 160,000,000 on January 30, 2013, and interest shall be paid at 8% per annum, and if a notary public fails to perform his/her duties immediately, he/she shall be aware of the absence of objection thereto” (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

(2) C) The instant notarial deed is deemed null and void due to an unfair juristic act caused by pathmb. The Plaintiff’s declaration of intent was revoked by coercion, or all of the obligations on the instant notarial deed was filed by filing a suit of objection and filed a non-performance of compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed. However, on May 1, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “for compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s notarial deed based on the instant notarial deed, KRW 148,249,49, and KRW 8% per annum from March 28, 2014 to the date of full payment, the said judgment shall be dismissed only for the portion exceeding the amount calculated by the rate of 148,249,49, and KRW 8% per annum from March 28, 2014.

(3) On the above judgment, C appealed as Seoul High Court 2015Na16028, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 29, 2015 by withdrawing an appeal.

B. On March 21, 2014, the Defendant entered into a sales contract on March 21, 2014 with respect to a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant truck”) owned by him/her under his/her name, and made a change of ownership on the same day, as indicated in the order, and was in excess of his/her obligation at the time of the conclusion of pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

(a)a Party;

arrow