(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.02 2015나26568

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) 서울고등법원 2016.06.02 2015나26568

사해행위취소

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation in this judgment are as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows; and (b) the judgment on the argument of the defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Co., Ltd.") is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding it as stated in Paragraph (3) below, and thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the fourth 15-16th 16th 15-16th 1 of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of “All the parties appeal (Seoul High Court 2014Na62093), all the parties appeal (Seoul High Court 2014Na62093), and the Seoul High Court dismissed all the appeals by the parties on October 16, 2015, and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive around that time.”

(b) No. 24 of the first instance judgment No. 5 of the fifth instance judgment is written with the phrase “No. 24, 28, 29 of the first instance judgment”.

C. Article 14 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court provides that “The Defendant’s bad faith, which is a beneficiary and subsequent purchaser, shall be presumed” shall be presumed to be “the bad faith of the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser shall be presumed.”

The part of the sixth 20th judgment of the first instance court stating, “There is no evidence to acknowledge it,” “Although considering all the evidence submitted by the Defendant Company to the trial and the circumstances surrounding its assertion, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant Company is bona fide, and there is no objective and acceptable evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.”

(e) Forms 4 through 17 of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

B) Defendant D’s bona fide defense, in fact, lent money to the Defendant Company and established the right to collateral security as above, and asserts that the aforementioned act of establishing the right to collateral security was unaware of the fact that it was a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.

Dominant, creditor, etc.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.04.07 2015나2057285

-서울고등법원 2018.02.08 2017나2049264

-서울고등법원 2016.10.07 2016나2006772

-제주지방법원 2021.02.02 2020나10671

-서울고등법원 2017.06.08 2016나2070827