beta
광주지방법원 2017.09.29 2017나50996

사해행위취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Judgment of the court of first instance No. 1-B.

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the cancellation of a fraudulent act against the Defendant and the claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of a title trust agreement, and the claim for the cancellation of a fraudulent act was accepted, and the claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the termination of a title trust

As to this, the defendant only appealed against the cited part of the claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the cited part of the claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act.

2. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the “(1) of Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance” shall be deemed as “(A)”; (b) the “Class 4(2)” as “(B)”; and (c) the “Class 4(2)” as “Class 15(b)”; and (d) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance other than each height is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b)

3. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) In principle, a claim that may be protected by the obligee’s right to revoke the existence of the preserved claim should have occurred before the act was committed, but, at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that is the basis of the establishment of the claim, and there is high probability as to the establishment of the claim in the near future, and in the near future, where the probability thereof has been realized and the claim has been established by realizing it in the near future, the claim may also be the preserved

At the time of August 2, 201, when the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed on the real estate No. 1 of this case, the plaintiff's sales loss was not yet determined, but the tort of C, which is the basis of the claim for damages, was already committed, and the plaintiff's actual loss was realized, and then filed a lawsuit against C for compensation for damages.

Therefore, in the future.