beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap139, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.
B. On May 6, 2009, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank loaned KRW 5 billion general loan to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) at interest rate of KRW 10% and December 8, 2009, with maturity of KRW 5 billion. B jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations of Section C. Since December 8, 2010, C lost its interest interest due to overdue payment.
C. B, from August 6, 2010 to February 25, 2013, the Defendant, a female student, transferred the sum of KRW 210,950,000 to the Defendant’s national bank account or the Korea St Bank account, each of which is KRW 210,950,00,00 in [Attachment B] Nos. 1 to 8 of the “Record of Transfer” attached hereto.
(hereinafter “instant remittance act”). [Grounds for recognition] Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that around May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff received B’s financial transaction details from the National Bank of Korea, the Korea C&T Bank (hereinafter “Stock Company”), etc., and around that time, the Plaintiff knew that B performed the remittance of this case to the Defendant.
The lawsuit for the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case brought on August 5, 2015, which had been filed on August 5, 2015, is unlawful as the exclusion period expires.
B. In the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement for the creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the debtor merely knew that he/she conducted a disposal of the property, and that such a juristic act is prejudicial