(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.01.13 2015가단23601

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.01.13 2015가단23601

사해행위취소

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 60 million to B for a loan period of 48 months, and monthly principal and interest to be repaid in equal installments. However, on October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Da230805, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time with the winning judgment rendered on March 6, 2015.

B. As of June 3, 2015, the principal and interest of a loan is KRW 75,410,471.

C. B on March 22, 2014, sold to the Defendant the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) which is the only real estate of the Defendant, and the same year.

5. 20. The registration of ownership transfer was completed. D.

On May 21, 2014, the registration of creation of a new mortgage on the apartment of this case was cancelled on November 15, 2007, which was created by the debtor B and the creditor as a new bank, and on April 2, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact inquiry result of this court's fact inquiry about Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion argues that the conclusion of the sales contract with the defendant on the apartment of this case, which is the only property B, constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and that the defendant, the beneficiary, should compensate the plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the preserved claim.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with B prior to the conclusion of the above sales contract, and thus, the Plaintiff became disqualified for the benefit of time thereafter.

Even if the plaintiff's above principal and interest claim against B can be the preserved claim of creditor's right of revocation, and the conclusion of sales contract with the defendant for the apartment of this case, which is the only property B, constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed.

The defendant did not know whether the above principal and interest of the plaintiff B exists.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.01.18 2017가단104257

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.01.13 2015가단6674

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.22 2015가단84794

-인천지방법원 2016.03.30 2015나55816

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.27 2014가단5251931