사해행위취소
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the following additional portions, and thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4
2. The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the Plaintiff was aware of a fraudulent act between D and Defendant B around November 24, 2010, which led to the appellate trial, due to the lapse of the exclusion period.
Action for revocation by a creditor shall be brought within one year from the day when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation, and within five years from the day when a juristic act has been done.
(2) Article 406(2) of the Civil Act provides, “The date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the obligor merely knew of the fact that the obligor performed a disposal act of the property, and that such a juristic act is an act detrimental to obligee, it is not sufficient to satisfy the claims completely due to the deficiency in joint security of claims or the lack of joint security in the circumstances where the obligor had already been insufficient, and further, it is necessary to inform the obligor of the fact that the obligor had an intention to harm the obligee. Moreover, it cannot be presumed that the obligee was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and the burden
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5855 Decided April 26, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47852 Decided October 29, 2009, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence submitted by the Defendants was collected, and even if all of the evidence submitted by the Defendants were to be seen, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unable to fully satisfy the Plaintiff’s claims due to the instant purchase and sale reservation and provisional registration before June 16, 2013, which was one year prior to the time of the instant lawsuit, and that D was aware of the intent to harm.