logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가단229576
사해행위취소
Text

1. Defendant DM Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 132,293,744 and its amount from March 30, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that manufactures electronic parts. The Plaintiff traded films, etc. necessary for the manufacture of electronic equipment with Defendant DM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant DM”), and was not paid KRW 132,293,744, out of the amount of goods traded from Defendant DM from January 2016 to May 2016.

B. On April 20, 2016, Defendant DM entered into a sales contract with Defendant CMS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant CMS”) with the purchase price of KRW 2,258,00,000 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On April 29, 2016, Defendant DM entered into a sales contract with Defendant CMS (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On April 29, 2016, the ownership transfer registration was completed in Defendant CS’s name under Defendant CS’s name as the receipt of the registration of the Daegu District Court.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, the mortgagee’s first priority right and the mortgagee’s first priority right, which are the Bank of Korea’s maximum debt amount of KRW 2.16 million, was established respectively (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant mortgages”); Defendant CCS paid the secured debt amount of KRW 1,922,837,159 on April 29, 2016, and cancelled the said first priority right; on the same day, the New Bank of Korea, Inc., established the establishment of the mortgage amount of KRW 2.16 million, the debtor, and Defendant CCS, the remainder of the registered mortgage amount of KRW 2.16 million.

Meanwhile, at the time of the instant sales contract, Defendant DM had a secured obligation for the instant 2nd mortgage worth KRW 178,036,686 to the Sung Steel. However, the said 2nd mortgage was cancelled on April 26, 2016 after the establishment of a security right for mechanical devices.

On the other hand, at the time of the instant sales contract, Defendant DM did not have any property other than the instant real estate, while the Plaintiff.

arrow