logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2020.06.24 2019가단111444
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor who has a claim against C for the payment of KRW 11,902,192 as well as damages for delay from March 9, 1994. B. Real estate stated in paragraph 1 of the attached list has acquired ownership on December 31, 2003, but the registration for transfer of ownership was completed on February 13, 2017 to C on the ground of “sale on February 9, 2017.”

C. The real estate listed in the attached list No. 2 obtained ownership on June 17, 1980 by E, but on May 13, 2013, the ownership was transferred to F on the ground of “donation on April 29, 2013,” and the ownership transfer registration was completed on January 15, 2018 to C on the ground of “sale on January 12, 2018.”

Attached Form

The real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the list (the first place area was 2,86 square meters, and the 587 square meters of which was divided into G on April 18, 2017) acquired ownership on December 31, 2003, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 20, 2017 to C on the ground of “sale on April 19, 2017.” E. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of “sale on May 20, 2019” with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

(f) H, I, J, and F are E’s children, and D are 9 degrees E’s children.

The defendant is the extra grandchildren of H H H E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. On May 20, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that the sales contract concluded between C and the Defendant on May 20, 2019 constituted a fraudulent act and sought its revocation and restitution.

The defendant asserts that since each of the instant real estate was trusted by E and the defendant to C, it is not a responsible property of C.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence and evidence set forth earlier and the evidence set forth in Nos. 3 through 6, 11, 12, 14, and 17, E is to purchase real estate for children, and E is to purchase real estate from D around February 9, 2017.

arrow