beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2017.11.29 2015가단3926

사해행위취소 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

C On December 8, 2014, a sales contract was concluded to sell the instant real estate in KRW 84 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on the same day (hereinafter “the registration of transfer of ownership”) is not in dispute between the parties, or is acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 3 and 6.

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case filed after the lapse of one year, is unlawful as the limitation period under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act has expired, since the plaintiff had received provisional registration from C on December 8, 2014 with respect to the real estate of this case.

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the debtor merely knows that he/she committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he/she conducted a disposal act of the property, and it is necessary to inform the debtor of the fact that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the creditor, that it is not sufficient to fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already in the short situation, and that he/she had the intent to harm the debtor. Furthermore, it is difficult to presume that the debtor knew of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and that the burden of proof as to the lapse

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280 Decided July 4, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47852 Decided October 29, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5855 Decided April 26, 2013, etc.). The Plaintiff’s real estate in this case around December 8, 2014.