(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.10.14 2015가단384

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) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.10.14 2015가단384

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Hyundai Card Co., Ltd issued a credit card to B but failed to receive the credit card payment from B, and thus, notified the transfer to B of the credit card payment claim (the total of KRW 19,115,844 won, including principal, KRW 17,901, KRW 471, and interest as of September 30, 2014) on September 30, 2014 and then transferred the credit card payment claim to the Plaintiff on October 6, 2014.

B. B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on June 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on July 30, 2014, which was received on July 30, 2014 by the Seogu District Court Decision 98625.

C. On November 27, 1987, the Defendant and B were legally married between their spouses who completed the marriage report. The Defendant and B completed the marriage report on September 12, 2014.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 2 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that Eul's act of donation to the defendant, who is the wife of the real estate of this case, constitutes a fraudulent act knowing that Eul's act of donation to the defendant, which is one of his sole real estate, constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed, so the contract of this case should be revoked within the scope of the plaintiff's claim amount as a fraudulent act. The defendant asserts that the contract of this case shall return to the plaintiff within the scope of the plaintiff'

In regard to this, the Defendant originally acquired the instant real estate at his own effort and cost, and as at the time of the purchase, the Defendant was unable to obtain succession to the obligation of loans under the name of the seller, which was established on the instant real estate, and completed registration under the name of the husband B, who was the husband, due to the lack of credit of the Defendant, and as such, the instant gift contract was merely restored in its name

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.23 2015가단105664

-전주지방법원 2017.04.14 2016가단9072

-창원지방법원 2015.07.22 2015가단70610

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.23 2020가단5065513

-서울서부지방법원 2018.04.06 2017가단288