logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.07.02 2014나18085
사해행위취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 60,000, and the lease term from October 30, 2006 to October 30, 201.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with C for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 15,000,000 for lease deposit and its delay damages with the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Ra672, the Seoul District Court, Kimcheon-si, and the Plaintiff received an order for payment on May 23, 2013, “C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 31, 201 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment,” and the said payment order was finalized on July 9, 2013.

C. After doing so, the Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate ownership C with respect to the share of 8/84 square meters, among D & 277 square meters in Daegu District Court F, Daegu District Court D & 277 square meters. At the auction procedure, the Plaintiff received 4,034,889 won from the executing court on February 10, 2014.

On the other hand, on May 15, 2009, C entered into a sales contract to sell the instant land to the Defendant for KRW 51,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On May 20, 2009, C completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the said sale (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”).

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 3, 7, 8, 9, Eul’s evidence 1, 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The assertion C entered into a sales contract to sell the instant land to the Defendant, who was his/her former, on May 15, 2009 when the debt was exceeded, and the said sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to a general creditor, and thus, between the Defendant and C.

arrow