beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s ratio of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 24% per annum from November 4, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Part as to Defendant B
(a) Indication of the cause of claim: It is as shown in the attached Form;
(b) Judgment by service;
2. Part as to Defendant C
A. On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B’s transfer of 100 million won to the second floor of multi-household apartment house E in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, for a lessor on November 23, 2015 constitutes a fraudulent act and thus, Defendant C should pay 100 million won to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff's assertion is unfair because the defendant C received money from the defendant C at the time, caused a huge damage to the property of the defendant C, who is the head of the F, and the defendant C received a division of property at the time of judicial divorce.
B. However, there is no dispute that Defendant B was insolvent at the time of transferring chonsegwon to Defendant C.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 24, F is the owner of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G building (7 households). Defendant B, as the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act, managed the above G building from around 2009, including entering into a lease contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, etc. Defendant B, around November 2015, 1.40 million won of the F’s property due to gambling with stocks and a right of lease on a deposit basis. Accordingly, Defendant C was transferred KRW 100 million as the sole property when filing a divorce claim against Defendant B on or around November 2015; thereafter, Defendant B went missing after entering into a criminal complaint due to fraud from Defendant BF; and Defendant C was sentenced to divorce by service by publication on or around 2016 under the name of the Seoul Family Court; Defendant B was liable for child rearing deposit against Defendant C50 million won under the name of the Defendant C, and Defendant C was liable for child rearing deposit against Defendant C16.
In light of the above facts, Defendant C’s acquisition of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case.