logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원경주지원 2020.10.07 2019가단3298
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim against D with the Daegu District Court 201Gadan817 on March 29, 2019, on August 20, 2019, with Nonparty D as the obligor, and Nonparty D as the garnishee (Seoul District Court 2018TTTTT 11013). The Plaintiff filed a claim for the collection of the debt against the Plaintiff under the Daegu District Court 2019Gadan817 on the basis of the aforementioned court’s order of seizure and collection (Seoul District Court 2018TTT 200 million won and its interest from March 6, 2019 to May 31, 2019), and the judgment below became final and conclusive based on the annual rate from the following day to August 131, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the amount to the Plaintiff as it is.

B. On June 4, 2019, D borrowed KRW 33,00,00 from the Defendants, and concluded a mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount of KRW 43,00,000 with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as the only real estate owned by it (hereinafter “instant contract”). As to the instant apartment as to the instant apartment, the Plaintiff, the debtor D, the maximum debt amount of KRW 43,00,000,000 was registered on June 4, 2019 by the Daegu District Court No. 29375, Jun. 4, 2019, as the Plaintiff, the Defendants, the debtor D, the maximum debt amount of KRW

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). [Grounds for recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D provided the instant apartment as security to the Defendants, which is the only property under excess of the obligation, such as bearing the Plaintiff’s debt for collection, etc., and reduced the liability property. Therefore, the instant contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the instant right to collateral security should be revoked as it is restored to its original state.

B. The claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation of the existence of the preserved right can, in principle, be regarded as a fraudulent act.

arrow