사해행위취소
1. The lawsuit against the Defendants shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
A lawsuit of revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirement for the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the obligee had harmed the obligee. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the obligor merely knew of the fact that the obligor conducted a disposition of disposal of the property, and that the juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee, it is required to inform the obligor that the obligor was unable to fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009, etc.). We examine the instant case.
According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers) and the whole pleadings, the following facts are as follows: (a) the return of value-added tax, etc. was notified C on June 30, 2010 by the payment deadline; (b) C did not pay by the payment deadline; (c) the Plaintiff issued a reminder pursuant to Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act; (d) C did not pay by July 30, 2010; (e) the Plaintiff seized each real estate listed in the separate sheet listed in C owned on August 25, 2010 pursuant to Article 240 (1) 1 of the National Tax Collection Act; and (e) each real estate of this case was already completed not only by the establishment registration of mortgage but also by the establishment registration (a total of 265,790,000 won) under the name of Hasan Agricultural Cooperative, etc.; and (e) each of the real estate contracts of this case at the time of seizure.
If so, the plaintiff is subject to attachment disposition.