beta
Text
1. A mortgage agreement concluded on September 26, 2013 between the Defendant and B on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) B obtained a loan from the Daewoo Capital Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff lost the benefit of time due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repay its loan obligations within the fixed period, and on November 21, 2002, the Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. seeking payment of the acquisition amount under the Suwon District Court No. 2005da58342, Dec. 8, 2005, which rendered a judgment on December 8, 2005 that “the Defendant jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 38,234,143, and the amount of KRW 18,420,842, which was calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from March 1, 2005 to the date of full payment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 11, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the principal and interest on KRW 17,571,201, and damages for delay.
B. On September 26, 2013, No. B entered into a contract to create a mortgage on a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”). On the same day, B completed the registration of establishment of mortgage, which constitutes 20,000,000 for the mortgagee’s Defendant and the bond value of the instant motor vehicle upon receipt of the military at the time of military delivery. B did not possess any other property except the instant motor vehicle on September 2013.
[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the fact-finding results on the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. As to the instant motor vehicle, which is the only property B with the intent to establish a fraudulent act and to establish a right to collateral security, a contract with the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act which causes the reduction of the joint security of general creditors, including the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, who is the beneficiary, is presumed to have been aware of such circumstances.
If the debtor's act of disposal of property constitutes a fraudulent act, such fraudulent act or acquisition.