beta
(영문) 대법원 1981. 2. 24. 선고 80다1963 판결

[사해행위취소][공1981.4.15.(654),13734]

Main Issues

Whether the transfer of ownership in the name of a third party designated by the title trustee constitutes a fraudulent act

Summary of Judgment

The act that a trustee has completed the registration of ownership transfer of a trusted real estate in the name of a third party designated by the truster as the performance of a duty to return the trusted real estate by the trust act does not constitute a fraudulent act

[Reference Provisions]

Article 406(1) of the Civil Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 67Da75 Decided April 25, 1967

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1174 delivered on July 7, 1980

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's debtor, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate stated in the attached list of the judgment below, because it was the only property of the non-party 1, which caused the same non-party 1's active property to be less than the total amount of debts, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's claim that the registration of transfer of ownership was caused by the most trade. Rather, in full view of the evidence in the judgment, the non-party 1's registration of transfer of ownership in the above non-party 1's name was made in a trust relationship with the above non-party 1, who is the relative of the non-party 2. The non-party 2, who is the truster, performed the duty to return the above real estate according to the designation of the trust act, and the process of cooking evidence that was conducted by the court below, was just in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)

심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1980.7.7.선고 80나1174