(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014가단220457

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) 서울남부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014가단220457

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. From February 1, 2013 to July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied B with computer software, and filed a lawsuit against B on the claim for the payment of goods with the Seoul Western District Court 2013Gadan36814, and rendered a judgment on December 17, 2013, stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,080,40 and delay damages therefor,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 7, 2014.

B. On January 12, 2014, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the instant real estate, the sole property of which is KRW 118 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on January 15, 2014.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, B did not have any particular property other than the instant real estate, while not only the Plaintiff’s debt to the Plaintiff, but also exceeds the obligation, such as bearing the obligation to the Bank of Korea to pay the amount of KRW 60 million.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the above goods against B was already established at the time of the instant sales contract, and thus, the obligee’s right of revocation may be the preserved claim.

B. It would be a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances to the effect that the debtor, who is the sole property, sells real estate and alters it into money which is easily consumed, and in such cases, the debtor's intention to commit the fraudulent act and the beneficiary's bad faith shall be presumed.

In this case, according to the above facts of recognition, B sold the real estate of this case, which is its sole property in excess of debt, to the defendant, which is the only property of this case, and it is presumed that B and the defendant's bad faith, which is the debtor B and beneficiary, is a fraudulent act detrimental to creditors including the plaintiff.

C. The defendant's bona fide defense

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 제천지원 2018.11.28 2018가단21087

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.09 2017가단5042718

-전주지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가단4795

-서울북부지방법원 2017.02.09 2015가합27143