beta
Text
1. Within the scope of the property inherited from Nonparty E to the Plaintiff
(a) Defendant B shall be KRW 3,224,184 and its importance.
Reasons
1. In light of the whole purport of the pleading in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including those with serial numbers), the facts of the cause of the claim can be acknowledged as a whole, and there is no counter-proof.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above facts finding as to the claim for a loan, the Defendants, the limited inheritor of E under the loan transaction agreement of this case, are obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from December 22, 2017 to the extent of property inherited from E; Defendant B, as to KRW 3,224,184; and KRW 2,821,428 among them; and Defendant C, and D, respectively; and KRW 2,149,456 from December 22, 2017 to the date of full payment; and KRW 1,80,952 from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.
B. Determination on the claim for revocation of a fraudulent act 1) An act of a debtor selling the sole property and changing it into money easily consumed or transferring it to another person free of charge constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). According to the above recognition, E donates the instant real property, the only property of which is its own property, in excess of its obligation, such as failure to repay the debt of the instant loan, etc., to the Defendant B (hereinafter “instant gift contract”).
On the basis of the conclusion of the contract, the Suwon District Court rendered a registration for the transfer of ownership on September 22, 2016 with the Anyang Branch of the Suwon District Court No. 128351, which was received on September 22, 2016. The instant donation agreement constitutes a fraudulent act that gratuitously transfers the sole property in excess of the obligation to another person and that causes or deepens the shortage of common creditors’ joint security. (ii) It is sufficient that the recognition of the risk that the creditor would be unable to receive the repayment of the obligation due to the shortage of joint security would lead to the risk that the creditor would face difficult to receive the repayment of the obligation.