logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.09.22 2017가단201643
사해행위취소
Text

1. The gift contract concluded on June 8, 2016 between the Defendants and C on each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff Company D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on August 6, 2014.

(2) On September 8, 2016, a guarantee accident occurred due to natural body, and the Plaintiff subrogated to a new bank amounting to KRW 822,07,50,950 on December 30, 2016, according to the said credit guarantee contract, to the credit guarantee contract for the non-party company’s loan amounting to KRW 807,50,000. On the same day between C and C.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff acquired a claim for reimbursement against the above principal and interest of loan against Nonparty Company and C. B. The fraudulent act C is based on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) between the Defendants, one’s own son on June 8, 2016 and the Defendants, as their own son.

(2) As to the donation contract, the donation contract of this case is concluded (hereinafter “instant donation contract”).

(C) The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Jeonju District Court No. 66988, Jun. 22, 2016, with respect to shares of each of the instant real estate, among each of the instant real estate. D. Pursuant to the attached Table 2, the active and passive properties of each of the instant real estate, other than the instant real estate, are as shown in the attached Table 2. [Grounds for recognition] Nos. 1 through 21 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, order of submission of tax information to the head of full time city in this court, fact inquiry results, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation of a preserved claim should, in principle, arise before an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act is performed, there is a high probability that there is a legal relationship that has already been formed at the time of a fraudulent act, and that the claim should be established in the near future.

arrow