beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.23 2014나2011411

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's additional claims are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the judgment is reasonable, and thus, citing it as the ground for this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and below sees the assertion that the plaintiff added to the appellate court.

2. As a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act, the principal safety claim and the lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act added by the Plaintiff at the appellate court to determine this, the Plaintiff asserts that the waiver of the right indicated in the separate sheet in August 3, 2012 against the Defendant of Snick Point Household (hereinafter “instant waiver of the right”) against the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act, and sought revocation of the waiver of the right and restitution accordingly.

On March 19, 2013, the Defendant submitted to the first instance court of the instant case a written statement on the waiver of the right (referring to the written statement on the waiver of right in this case from No. 1 to No. 5; hereinafter “the written statement on the waiver of right in this case”) along with a construction site contract and tax invoice, etc. on April 18, 2013. As such, the Defendant, upon receipt of the written statement on April 22, 2013, became aware of all the existence of the waiver of right in this case and the fraudulent act against the Plaintiff on the waiver of right in this case, filed a lawsuit for the revocation of fraudulent act in this case with the application for alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on May 9, 2014, which is one year after the date, the part on the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case is unlawful.

However, in the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the cause of revocation, and it is insufficient to say that the creditor was aware of the cause of revocation.