Essung simuls

Representative Director 000

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Chicago-si

Chicago-si

Representative Chairman 000

Law Firm United States et al.

Attorney 000,000

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff filed a claim against the non-party A for the payment of the unpaid construction cost pursuant to the settlement execution note on the construction work on the surface money of 000 Mag-ri, Magnam-gun, Magnam-gun, and on October 007, 2007, "A, etc." was sentenced to the plaintiff 884, 577, 910 and 810, 738, 968 out of the amount of KRW 810, 968, and the above judgment was finalized on November 16, 2007.

B. A, on November 00, 2007, completed the registration of ownership transfer with the receipt No. 000000 on December 00, 2007, on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the annexed sheet of this case”) registered in his own name, on the ground that the sale on November 00, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant sales contract”).

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, 2-1, and 2-2, the whole pleadings

[Purpose of this Act]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the sales contract of this case between A and the defendant is an intentional act with intent to harm the plaintiff, it should be revoked, and accordingly, the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant should not be revoked.

3. Determination

Therefore, in order to become a fraudulent act, the act of disposal of the debtor's property should be caused by the reduction of the debtor's whole property and the shortage of the debtor's joint security of claims due to such act. In other words, the debtor's small property should be more than the active property (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da32533 Decided October 12, 2001). The plaintiff does not have any assertion and proof against this court's name, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the act of disposal of the debtor's property is a fraudulent act is not justified without any need to further examine it.

Even if A’s family affairs exceeded the obligation under the instant sales contract, or deepened the situation. Considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including some numbers) and witness Eul’s testimony, the real estate of this case is land for which the defendant’s assistant intervenor continued to purchase the real estate from A who is a clan member on March 00, 1996 and registered the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant’s assistant participant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant’s assistant participant. Because of the issue of extinctive prescription, it can be recognized that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the defendant’s other clan, and the witness C and D’s testimony alone lack of any counter-proof evidence. Thus, the act of a trustee of the real estate’s name completed the registration of ownership transfer to a third party on the basis of a return obligation based on the trust act, or the act of completing the registration of ownership transfer from the title truster to a third party on the restoration of the real estate, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

Since the plaintiff's assertion cannot be seen as the above, no mother's argument is justified.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.