logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원해남지원 2019.12.10 2018가단2544
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. A payment contract entered into on March 22, 2018 between C and the Defendant for each real estate stated in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C used a loan of KRW 179 million from D (hereinafter “D”) on June 9, 2015, and KRW 50 million on June 10, 2015 under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee.

B. C had completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) on March 23, 2018 with respect to the Defendant on the ground of payment in kind on March 22, 2018 (hereinafter “instant payment in kind”) under the status of more than active property.

C. From May 14, 2018, C began to delay the repayment of principal and interest on each of the above loans to D.

Accordingly, upon the request of D, the Plaintiff paid KRW 160,1100,000 to D as the guarantor on June 28, 2018, and KRW 42,736,389 as the repayment of the loan on June 9, 2015, and KRW 42,736,389, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 15, Gap's 17 to 22 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Whether the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against C may be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, which can be claimed for the revocation of the accord and satisfaction contract in this case, requires that in principle, the claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation would have arisen before the act was conducted, which may be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, has already occurred at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim would have been established in the near future by confluentizing the probability of the claim in the near future. In the event where the

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da76426 Decided February 23, 2012). At the time of entering into the instant payment contract, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against C is based on the establishment of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement.

arrow