logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.29 2019나66453
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of some contents, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

On the third and fourth sides of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

Notwithstanding the name of the full bench to clarify the purport of the claim in the appellate trial, the Plaintiff still filed an application for the commission of document delivery with respect to the fraudulent act seeking revocation, claiming that the fraudulent act is “a claim transfer contract between the Defendant and the non-party company” and claiming that it is “a claim transfer and takeover contract between the Defendant and the non-party company” and filed an application for the commission of document delivery with respect to all of the litigation records of the case in the Suwon District Court 2019Na67043. In order to verify the claim transfer and takeover contract without proof of existence of relevant evidence, in the first instance judgment, the contract already made on the date alleged by the Plaintiff is not a claim transfer and takeover contract, but a contract for document transfer and takeover is recognized as a business transfer and takeover contract, and even in light of relevant evidence presented by the first instance court, it can be recognized that the Defendant received all the business assets and goodwill of the non-party company’s operation of the non-party company due to the payment

There is no sufficient evidence to deem that the non-party company was in excess of its obligation at the time of April 27, 2017 alleged by the Plaintiff. The following circumstances, namely, the Defendant appears to have entered into a business transfer or takeover contract with the non-party company under the brokerage of F and G, etc., a real estate intermediary company, and fulfilled the contract by paying the amount of the premium, etc. under the contract. The Defendant is from the non-party company.

arrow