(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가단526622

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) 수원지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가단526622

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to B on May 26, 2016. As of July 20, 2017, the amount of the principal and interest on the loan to B is KRW 107,187,031.

(P) On September 9, 2016, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), which is one’s own possession (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the said act of disposal by B constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces the liability of general creditors, including the Plaintiff.

However, since the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) established on the instant real estate was already cancelled after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant, instead of restitution, shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 87,000,000,000 calculated by deducting the amount of the secured debt of the instant real estate from the market price of the instant real estate at KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won

B. At the time of the instant purchase and sale contract for the Defendant’s assertion, the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 140,440,000 (the secured debt amount of KRW 113,00,000), was established, and C concluded a lease contract with B on October 2, 2014 with regard to the instant real estate, and had resided in the instant real estate with the fixed date obtained.

However, since there is no money remaining when deducting the amount of secured debt and the amount of claims for return of the lease deposit with the right to preferential reimbursement from the market price of the real estate of this case, the sales contract of this case cannot be a fraudulent act.

2. If the property on which a mortgage on the issue is established is transferred to a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act is established within the extent of the value of the property, that is, the balance after deducting the secured claim amount of the mortgage from the market value, and if the secured claim amount exceeds the value of the property, it shall be concerned.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2015가단5068808

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2008. 10. 16. 선고 2008가합473 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2015.01.30 2014나4400

-대법원 2007. 5. 31. 선고 2006다18242 판결

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.06.27 2018가합10101