(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가합207758

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가합207758

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a credit guarantee agreement with B and the credit guarantee principal amounting to KRW 592,00,000, and the credit guarantee period from September 11, 2014 to September 10, 2015, with the creditor as a new bank.

B. On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff issued to B a credit guarantee certificate with the guaranteed amount of KRW 592,00,000, the guaranteed amount of KRW 5000,000, the guaranteed amount of KRW B and the guaranteed amount of KRW 740,000 by September 10, 2015, and B borrowed KRW 740,00,000 from a new bank by using the credit guarantee certificate issued by the Plaintiff around September 15, 2014.

C. B: (a) on August 5, 2015, on the grounds of business losses due to economic depression, oil drop, and waiver of business operation, etc., the interest on the loan was overdue; and (b) at that time, the new bank notified the Plaintiff that a credit guarantee accident for the loss of the benefit of time occurred.

On November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff subrogated 598,332,837 won in total for the principal and interest of loans under the instant credit guarantee agreement to the new bank.

E. The Plaintiff spent KRW 423,805 to preserve the claim for indemnity incurred by subrogation under the instant credit guarantee agreement.

F. B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on July 18, 2015 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the purchase price of KRW 650,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on July 24, 2015 regarding the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 7, each entry

2. Determination

A. It is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation of the preserved claim 1 would, in principle, have arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim, and the claim is based on the

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가합506107 (1)

-의정부지방법원 2016.08.11 2016나52495

-서울고등법원 2015.08.27 2015나2001459

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.26 2014가합505418

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.13 2014가합523980