[사해행위취소][공1982.8.1.(685),594]
(a) The scope of a third party who is unable to oppose the invalidity of false representation in collusion;
B. The meaning of fraudulent act subject to the creditor's right of revocation
A. The third party who cannot oppose the invalidity of a false declaration of conspiracy refers to a person other than the party of a false declaration and the general successor, who has an interest in a new legal cause based on the legal relationship formed externally by a false declaration. Therefore, in case where the non-party (A) agreed to borrow the purchase fund of real estate from the defendant and make a provisional registration as a collateral, and thereafter, (B) transferred the creditors' compulsory execution to the non-party (B), and subsequently made a provisional registration in the future of the defendant, the defendant is deemed to have received provisional registration from the most transferee, but it is not based on a substantial new legal cause, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a third party in a false indication of conspiracy
B. The fraudulent act subject to the creditor's right of revocation refers to the debtor's property legal act that causes a decrease in the debtor's whole property and thus causes damage to the creditor's creditor's property, so it cannot be said that it is a fraudulent act if
A. Article 108 of the Civil Act: Article 406 of the Civil Act
Attorney Yang Chang-han, Counsel for the Korea Asset Management Corporation
Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 79Na1770 delivered on May 1, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Ground of appeal No. 1
According to Article 108 of the Civil Act, a declaration of intention made by a person who has conspired with the other party cannot be asserted against the third party acting in good faith. This means a person other than the third party with false indication and who has an interest as a new legal cause based on the legal relationship formed outside the country by false indication. According to the court below's decision, although the non-party 1 agreed on the provisional registration of this case from the non-party 1 on the real estate as collateral, if the non-party 1 purchased the real estate from the non-party 2 with the non-party 1, it would be impossible to execute the provisional registration of this case because the non-party 1 would have obtained the above provisional registration under the name of the non-party 2 with the non-party 2 without any relation to the plaintiff's claim for provisional registration, the defendant would not have any effect on the non-party 1's acquisition of the above provisional registration under the name of the non-party 2's own name because the defendant would not have any legal relation with the non-party 2's purchase of this case.
2. Ground of appeal No. 2
The obligee’s right of revocation is a right granted to the obligee for the purpose of preserving the joint collateral by denying the validity of the act of reduction of the obligee’s property and restoring the obligee’s property to its original condition. Thus, it is difficult to constitute a fraudulent act if the obligor’s active property is reduced compared to the total amount of the obligor’s property at the time of the act, and it is not possible to constitute a fraudulent act if the obligor’s property act does not decrease in the obligor’s total property value. According to the judgment of the court below, the obligee’s right of revocation cannot be seen as a 00,000 won for the above real estate at the time of this case’s holding that it was not a provisional registration of 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above real estate at the time of this case’s acquisition by the obligee’s provisional registration or 10,000 won for the above real estate at the time of this case’s acquisition by the obligee’s 1,070,000 won for the above real estate.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)