(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나32513

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나32513

사해행위취소

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B was engaged in a general automobile transport business under the trade name, such as C, D, E, and F from October 1, 2008 to March 20, 2013, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu has notified 1,94,00 won for value-added tax 1 on December 31, 2010 by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and 10,208,60 won for value-added tax, including value-added tax on October 25, 2010, and the details of national taxes under B were as follows:

(hereinafter “instant taxation claim”). B.

B On July 8, 1985, the Defendant reported marriage with the Defendant on July 8, 1985, and on November 8, 201, the Defendant reported divorce with the Defendant.

C. On December 2, 2011, B entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of the Changwon District Court Kim Sea Registry on December 15, 201.

At the time of the instant sales contract, the instant real estate was the only real estate of B, and B was in excess of its obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the instant safety defense is that B exceeded the real estate of this case on December 15, 201 and paid acquisition tax, education tax, etc. to the competent agency related to the instant real estate at that time. As such, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the instant real estate was transferred from B, and the instant lawsuit filed on July 29, 2013, which was one year after the date, raised on July 29, 2013, against the exclusion period, is deemed unlawful.

A lawsuit for revocation by a creditor shall be brought within one year from the date the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act), and in the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the creditor, who is the starting point for the exclusion period, "the date when he becomes aware of

참조조문

-민법 제406조 제2항

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2014.07.11 2013가단78238

-부산지방법원 2014.05.27 2013가단237146

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.24 2020나32518

-수원지방법원안양지원 2014.10.07 2013가단106817

-부산지방법원 2015.01.22 2013나43151