beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 10, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C and B with Daegu District Court No. 2004Kadan11359, and on November 10, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a judgment with the above court that “C and B jointly pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 22% per annum from June 18, 2002 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “acquisition decision”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 9, 2004.
B. On September 27, 2016, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at KRW 135,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Defendant completed the registration of the vice branch branch of the Daegu District Court on September 29, 2016 and the registration of the transfer of ownership based on the instant sales contract pursuant to the Act No. 116959, Sept. 29, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), Eul's evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion B sold the instant real estate owned by himself/herself on September 27, 2016 to the Defendant in excess of the obligation, such as bearing the obligation against the Plaintiff according to the judgment on the acquisition amount. The sale of the instant real estate to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act.
Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked, and the defendant shall implement the procedure to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership of this case.
3. Determination
A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the recognition of fraudulent act, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, the results of the submission of each taxation information on the Seo-gu Metropolitan City Office, the Seogu Office, and the purport of the entire pleadings, along with the facts acknowledged prior to the recognition of fraudulent act, the plaintiff was the transferee-creditor of Eul, and the sales contract of this case between the defendant and Eul in excess of the debt.