사해행위취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) using the "debt on repayment of principal and interest" under Section 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance as the "debt on repayment of principal and interest"; and (b) adding the judgment as follows, it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) cite it as it is in accordance with
2. The Defendant’s additional determination as to the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the obligee’s revocation lawsuit shall be filed within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act); (b) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of each of the instant trade reservations and each of the instant sales contracts on November 20, 2014, and subsequently changed the portion of the claim for compensation for value on December 1, 2015 to seek the implementation of the procedure for the provisional registration of each of the instant transfer of ownership rights and the cancellation of each of the instant transfer of ownership registrations; and (c) on the ground that the claim for the performance of the procedure for the registration of cancellation was filed one year after the date when the initial lawsuit was filed, the
However, when a creditor claims revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution of the original state in accordance with Article 406 (1) of the Civil Act, only the revocation of the fraudulent act may be first claimed and then a claim for restitution may be made later. In such cases, if a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act is filed within the period provided for in Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act, a claim for restitution of the original state may be made even after
(1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the amount of KRW 124,300,50 due to the cancellation of each of the instant sales agreements and each of the instant sales agreements and the restitution thereof, and the damages for delay on October 8, 2015, according to the purport of the entirety of the arguments and arguments regarding the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14108, Sept. 4, 2001).