beta
Text
1.(a)
On December 15, 2011, the deposit holders entered into with the Defendant as to each remittance stated in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, 42, and 43, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:
D filed a lawsuit against C with the Ulsan District Court 201Ga5666, which claimed the return of KRW 141,00,000,000, total amount of loans over 10 times from January 201 to May 26, 2011 (as of July 25, 2011) (hereinafter “instant bonds”).
B. On May 10, 2012, the above court rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (D) that “C shall pay D 144,46,383 won and 41,000,000 won among them, 5% per annum from July 26, 2011 to August 18, 2011, 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, 10,000 won per annum from July 26, 2011 to August 18, 2011; and 7.2% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On July 20, 2014, D entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to transfer KRW 79,000,000 of the above bonds to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of claims”) and died on August 5, 2014, and E and F inherited D respectively notified C of the transfer of claims on April 11, 2016 and January 4, 2017.
Meanwhile, on December 15, 201, 201, 325,900 won was transferred from the post office account in the name of the Defendant (so called “instant account”) (so called “instant remittance”) who was the spouse of the agricultural cooperative account in the name of C, as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant remittance”).
E. The present balance as of January 25, 2012 is KRW 4,232.
2. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. Several parties to the instant lawsuit filed by G are serving several documents of the revocation of fraudulent act in H’s name on the basis of the same factual basis as the Plaintiff in the case for revocation of the same fraudulent act, which is subject to revocation, and each of the above claims for the revocation of fraudulent act are all final and conclusive judgment against D.