beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The Plaintiff asserts that the portion of the amount of the secured claim of the second secured collateral is either 970,000,000 won of the secured claim of the second secured collateral and 680,000,000 won of the amount of the secured claim of the second secured collateral, the lower court calculated the amount of the secured claim based on KRW 970,00,000,000 even though the reimbursement was already made. In so determining, the lower court erred
The allegation in the grounds of appeal is a question of the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which are the matters of fact-finding authority of the fact-finding court, or is alleged on the premise of facts different from the facts recognized by the court below,
2. The portion borne by C owned shares out of the amount of secured claims of the first collateral mortgage;
A. In the instant case where the Plaintiff, a creditor of C, sought revocation of a fraudulent act against C and the Defendant’s sales contract of the instant real estate, the lower court determined that: (a) the market price as of the date of the instant sales contract of the instant real estate owned by C, I, and J is KRW 1,430,728,650; (b) the first collateral mortgage has been established for the entire real estate of this case, which is the debtor I; and (c) the amount of the secured claim is KRW 695,00,000, which is the amount of the secured claim borne by C’s share under the first collateral mortgage, which is the amount to be deducted from the secured claim provided by the joint collateral of general creditors; and (d) the amount to be deducted from the secured claim provided by the joint collateral of general creditors, which is the amount to be apportioned to KRW 695,00,000,000 in proportion to the value of the joint collateral, C, and J’s share, which is the object of the joint mortgage.
B. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
1 In determining whether a fraudulent act subject to revocation by an obligee constitutes a fraudulent act, if the property owned by an obligor is provided as a physical collateral for another obligee’s claim, the portion offered as a physical collateral for the obligor.