상속재산 분할협의는 재산권 목적 법률행위이고, 이로 인하여 체납자의 공동담보가 감소한 경우는 사해행위에 해당함[국승]
Seoul Northern District Court-2017-Ban-18152 ( October 30, 2018)
The agreement on division of inherited property is a legal act for property rights, and the case where the joint security of the delinquent taxpayer has decreased due to this is a fraudulent act.
Since the agreement on division of inherited property is a juristic act aimed at property rights by its nature, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. It is also applicable to a fraudulent act where the joint security against the general creditor has decreased by waiver of the right to the inherited property, while the debtor in excess of the debt already agreed on division of inherited
Article 406 of the Civil Act
2018Na34450 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Korea
AA
November 15, 2018
December 20, 2018
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
the Gu Office's place and place of action
1. Purport of claim
BB and the Defendant revoke the agreement on the split-off of inherited property on June 26, 2015 with respect to each share of 2/11 of the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”). The Defendant will implement to BB the procedures for the transfer registration of ownership based on the restoration of authentic names with respect to each share of 2/11 of the respective real estate of this case.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, accepts it as it is pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the defendant, as the grounds for appeal, has made the division consultation in this case according to the circumstances that the defendant contributed to the maintenance or increase of the property of the deceased CCC and the purport of the formation of the networkCC that the defendant shall inherit each of the real estate of this case to the defendant, so the division consultation in this case is not a fraudulent act, or the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, but the judgment of the first instance court is erroneous. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court on the establishment of the fraudulent act and the presumption of the defendant's bad faith are legitimate, and there is
Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.