beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,000 to B, and the Plaintiff has the principal and interest on the loans of KRW 26,906,001.
B. On November 28, 2014, B filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Jeonju District Court No. 2014 Congress No. 11809, and on May 1, 2015, the said individual rehabilitation procedure was abolished on the grounds that the repayment was unpaid on April 26, 2016, while repayment was made upon obtaining a decision to authorize the repayment plan.
C. B, May 13, 2016, drafted an executory notarial deed as to the debt repayment contract (quasi-loan contract) with a notary public C office No. 2238, 2016, No. 56,280,800 to a pro-friendly defendant. D.
On May 16, 2016, the Defendant received a claim seizure and collection order under the former District Court 2016TTT2477 as to the benefit claim against the Gunsan City of B, the only property of B, and the Plaintiff received a claim seizure and collection order under the same support 2016TT10 on October 17, 2016.
E. The obligor, from the beginning, assumes an obligation with the intention of having a specific obligee obtain full seizure of the obligor’s obligation, by taking the form of compulsory execution against the obligor’s active property, and prepared a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution against the obligor, and the obligee is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the obligor the entire amount of the obligor’s obligation, as when the obligor received the entire amount of the obligor’s claim by using it, and there are special circumstances to deem that the obligor’s claim does not differ from the transfer of the obligee’s claim to a specific obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da7783, Oct. 25, 2002). As such, the above obligation repayment agreement is revoked within the scope of KRW 26,906,001 of the Plaintiff’s claim amount against B, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the obligation to restore due to the revocation of the above fraudulent act, as well as damages for delay as stated in the claim for
2.The facts below the facts of recognition are as follows: Gap evidence 1 to 5, and Eul evidence 1 to 5.