logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.11.13 2018가단8615
근저당권설정등기말소
Text

1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet

A. The contract to establish a mortgage concluded on March 21, 2018 between the Defendant and B.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 21, 2018, the Defendant: (a) concluded a mortgage agreement (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) with regard to the real estate recorded in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet with B on March 21, 2018; (b) concluded on March 22, 2018, regarding the instant real estate, which was the cause of the instant mortgage agreement, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate”).

B. B’s excess of the obligation was active property at the time of the instant mortgage contract, and the instant real estate was the only real estate at which the market price was about KRW 37 million, but was in excess of the obligation, such as bearing a loan obligation of KRW 74 million against the Plaintiff as a small property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution

A. According to the above facts, B’s agreement on the mortgage of this case concluded with the Defendant at a level of excess of the debt becomes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, which is a general creditor, and the Defendant’s malicious intent is presumed to be a beneficiary. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant constitutes a bona fide beneficiary since, as a manager of an agricultural company, the Defendant loaned funds necessary to establish the mortgage of this case with B on March 21, 2018, KRW 10 million,00,000,000,000 on March 22, 2018, and KRW 4,898,000,000,000 won on March 29, 2018, as well as KRW 2,000,000 on March 29, 2018.

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his good faith in order to be exempted from his responsibility.

In this case, the good faith of the beneficiary is the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary.

arrow