사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Revocation of the agreement on the division of property added at the trial, and return of the bill subsequent thereto;
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation as to this part of the claim for the cancellation of the assignment of claims of this case and the return of the bill are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the agreement on the division of property added at the trial and the subsequent return of the bill should be revoked by fraudulent act, and that the Defendant should return each of the bills as stated in the separate sheet to B by restitution to the original state. 2) The Plaintiff asserts that the agreement on the division of property in this case should be revoked by fraudulent act.
A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date the creditor becomes aware of the grounds for revocation.
(2) According to the records, the Plaintiff asserted in the preparatory document dated May 26, 2015 that the instant claim assignment agreement constitutes a fraudulent act concluded with the Defendant in collusion with the Plaintiff, thereby undermining the Plaintiff, who is a taxation right holder, and accordingly, that the instant claim assignment agreement was concluded only before the transfer of the instant real estate.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the property division agreement of this case was concluded as B’s fraudulent act at the latest at the time of submitting a preparatory document dated May 26, 2016.
On July 15, 2016, after one year from May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff added a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act as to the instant agreement on the division of property and restitution of the bill to its original state, and as such, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the said claim added in the trial to its original state was unlawful, since the limitation period under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act lapsed.
3. The plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the assignment contract of this case and the return of the bill must be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.