beta
Text
1. For motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet:
A. The mortgage creation agreement entered into on July 8, 2015 between D and Defendant A, which was between D and Defendant A.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 59,600,00 to D for a loan period of KRW 60 months from the date of the loan period, KRW 7.15% per annum, and KRW 24% per annum. D delayed payment of the loan interest from October 23, 2015, while the loan principal remains in KRW 53,690,405.
B. Defendant A is a person who was the wife of D (the consultation on August 17, 2015) and Defendant B is the same living together with Defendant D, and Defendant C is the mother of D.
C. D has no particular property other than the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), whereas D bears a debt worth KRW 270 million to a large number of financial institutions including the Plaintiff, and is in the insolvent of debt excess.
D On July 8, 2015, the instant automobile entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant A on the amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 with respect to the instant automobile, each of which between Defendant B and Defendant C entered into a mortgage agreement on August 3, 2015, with the amount of claims KRW 20,000,000, and the amount of claims between Defendant C and the amount of claims KRW 30,000,00, respectively, and completed each of the procedures for the registration of the mortgage.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The act of completing the registration of each establishment of a mortgage against the instant automobile, the only property of D, when D’s insolvency exceeds his/her debt, constitutes a fraudulent act as a reduction in the joint security of the general creditors, including the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. D’s intent to commit suicide and the Defendants’ bad faith are presumed respectively.
B. The defendants' assertion and judgment are asserted to the purport that they constitute a bona fide beneficiary, since they were unable to borrow money to D but did not receive payment, they were subject to each mortgage on the instant automobile, and they were unaware of the fact that they had a debt to D.
However, the defendants and D.