beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.16 2016나2003308

사해행위취소

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Except where the Defendants added the judgment as to the same part of the first instance judgment or the part of the newly asserted, the court of first instance shall accept it as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the reasoning of the court of first instance is as follows.

On the 10th 10th 9th 10th 7th 10th 9th 201, “the Defendant is the person who was in the preparatory documents dated March 9, 2015.”

As at the first day of pleading of the first instance trial on March 19, 2015, the Defendants stated in the preparatory documents on March 9, 2015 that “Defendant B established the Defendant Company with the consent of the remaining Defendants, and entered into each of the instant consignment management agreements with J,” the confessions made by the Defendants as to the above facts was constituted under the Civil Procedure Act. As to this, the Defendants asserted that “The aforementioned previous allegations are against the truth and are written by the attorney, and thus, revoked the said confessions by making statements on May 4, 2016 of the content that “The said confessions are inconsistent with the truth, and are thus written by mistake.” However, only on the basis of the evidence of subparagraphs 23 and 24, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the confessions by the Defendants are contrary to the truth, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

2. The attached parts;

A. The Defendants’ assertion as to whether a legal act constitutes a fraudulent act and the method of restoring the original state refers to cases where (i) a legal act subject to a creditor’s right of revocation is a juristic act aimed at property right, and thus, the joint security of other creditors is reduced by repaying the obligation to a certain creditor in accordance with the principal place of the obligation; (ii) as in the instant case, the act of entrusting only the hotel management itself cannot be deemed an act of repaying the obligation, and thus, it is not subject