logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단147495
사해행위취소
Text

1. With respect to real estate indicated in the annex:

A. The sales contract concluded between the Defendant and C is revoked on May 1, 2013.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 17, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 64,000,00 to the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “C”)’s debt amounting to KRW 64,00,000,000, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C on May 27, 2013 with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan143939, and on June 24, 2014, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 64,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from June 8, 2013 to the date of full payment. The instant judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. C On May 1, 2013, an agreement to sell the instant real estate in KRW 130,000,000 to the Defendant, the sole real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) that is one of its own real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”).

(2) On May 27, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Seoul Central District Court on May 27, 2013, and the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of ownership transfer”) under Article 128814

(1) A. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, fact inquiry results of this court and the result of order to submit tax information, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s defense prior to the Defendant’s merits 1) The Plaintiff, on August 30, 2010, issued a provisional attachment on the instant real estate, but cancelled it on June 10, 2013. Since the instant sales contract was concluded on May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have known that the instant sales contract constituted a fraudulent act on June 10, 2013. The instant lawsuit brought one year after the lapse of the exclusion period, which was the starting date for the obligee’s exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, refers to the date the obligee became aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. Therefore, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff merely performed a disposal act by the obligor on June 10, 2013.

arrow