logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.01.12 2017나58327
사해행위취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

Basic Facts

This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court's reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fact that C of a preserved claim as to the cause of the claim is jointly and severally guaranteed by the non-party company’s obligation for indemnity against the plaintiff is as seen earlier, and that the credit guarantee contract was already concluded at the time of the instant sales contract, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged as follows. In light of the circumstances that the non-party company did not pay a loan at the time of the instant sales contract and registered as the delinquent on April 3, 2015, etc., it was highly probable that the claim for indemnity under the credit guarantee contract should be established in the near future. Since the non-party company did not perform the above loan obligation and actually incurs a claim for indemnity, the above claim for indemnity constitutes the preserved claim for obligee’s right of revocation.

The act of selling secured property and changing it into money which is easily consumed by the debtor, who is not in a state of excess of the obligation and the presumption of bad faith of the debtor and beneficiary, was made by sale to meet the legitimate repayment of some creditors.

Unless there are special circumstances that had been done, it shall be deemed that the creditor is a fraudulent act at all times. Therefore, the debtor's intention is presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser did not have bad faith is the beneficiary.

On September 24, 2015, the instant sales contract between C and the Defendant should be revoked by fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, and the Defendant’s bad faith, as the obligor C and the beneficiary, is presumed respectively.

Therefore, it is true.

arrow