logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2016.10.11 2014가단35772
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

The plaintiff and D filed a marriage report on December 18, 2001, and the defendant filed a marriage report with C on May 27, 1997 as the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce and consolation money against D and C on the ground of the adultery between D and C.

On November 20, 2014, the above court recognized the fact that C and D first made a sexual intercourse and passed several times each month from around August 2008 to around the end of 2013, and that “(i) the Plaintiff and D have divorced from the Plaintiff. ② The Plaintiff and D paid to each Plaintiff the amount of consolation money of KRW 50 million from January 24, 2014 to November 20, 2014, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized around that time.

The defendant also filed a lawsuit against C and D, 2014Dhap139, a divorce and consolation money, etc.

On August 27, 2014, the conciliation was concluded between ① the Defendant and C on August 27, 2014, namely, “(i) the Defendant shall be divorced. ② The C shall pay the Defendant a solatium amounting to KRW 100 million up to December 31, 2014, plus an annual interest rate of KRW 10% from January 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.”

C On January 23, 2014, each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 999 on January 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the ground of claim as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 11, and the ground of claim as to the whole of the pleadings was donated to the Defendant with excess of the debt. As such, the gift contract of this case was concluded by the general creditors including the Plaintiff.

arrow