B. In cases where the articles of incorporation do not provide for the joint representative director, whether a resolution of the abolition of the joint representative director system by the board of directors should go through the amendment of articles of incorporation (negative)

C. Whether there is a burden of proving the fact that the shareholder registry of a corporation is entered as a shareholder (=the person who asserts that he is a shareholder), and whether the court may determine it without the other party’s assertion on this point (affirmative)

D. Whether revocation of a fraudulent act can be asserted as a means of attack and defense in court (negative)

(e) If a principal registration of transfer of ownership has been made on the basis of provisional registration, the starting point of exclusion period for exercising the right of revocation;

F. The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held the date when the legal act, which is the ground for provisional registration, becomes aware of a fraudulent act, as the starting point of the exclusion period for exercising the creditor's right of revocation

B. Unless the articles of incorporation expressly provide for the joint representation of the company by several representative directors, the resolution of the abolition of the joint representative director system by the board of directors does not necessarily necessarily require the modification of the articles of incorporation.

C. The fact that a certain person is recorded as a shareholder in the register of shareholders of a stock company should be asserted by a person who asserts that he/she is a shareholder who can oppose the transfer of registered shares. Therefore, even if the other party did not make any assertion on this point, the court may decide on this point.

(d) If the obligor has knowingly performed a juristic act aiming at a property right, the obligee may file a claim by means of filing a lawsuit against the court for revocation of the fraudulent act, but may not claim it by means of an attack and defense in the lawsuit.

E. In a case where a provisional registration has been made for preserving a claim for transfer of ownership in the name of the beneficiary with respect to real estate owned by the debtor, and the principal registration for transfer of ownership was completed on the basis of a provisional registration, unless the juristic act which is the cause for the provisional registration and the juristic act which is the cause for the principal registration is clearly different, the juristic act which is the cause for the principal registration shall be established, and the legal act which is the cause for the principal registration, which is the cause for the principal registration, shall not be considered as a fraudulent act which is the cause for the revocation. Thus, the limitation period for a lawsuit claiming the revocation of a fraudulent act

F. We affirm the judgment of the court below which held that in the above paragraph (e) above, the date when the legal act, which is the ground for provisional registration, becomes aware of a fraudulent act, shall be the starting point of the exclusion period

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court below on the point that the theory of lawsuit points out (the provisional registration for preserving the claim for transfer of ownership, which was made in the name of the defendants with respect to each of the real estate in this case, which is the ownership of the site housing construction of the non-party corporation, was made in the name of the defendants except for the defendant 4 on the basis that each of the above registrations was made in accordance with the legitimate representative director's intent of the non-party corporation) shall be justified in light of the evidence relation as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law that erroneously recognized the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be accepted because it is merely against the determination of the evidence belonging to the whole authority of the court below and against

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that the total number of shares issued by the above non-party company was 20,00 shares, which were originally owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, 41% each, and 9% each, respectively, and that the non-party 3 transferred all of its shares to the non-party 5 around July 31, 198. The non-party 3, who was the joint representative director of the above company with the above non-party 5, did not give notice to the above non-party 5 and the non-party 2, who was present at the above non-party 1 and the non-party 4 only at the above non-party 1 and the non-party 4, the non-party 5's provisional general meeting was removed from the joint representative director with the consent of all the above non-party 1 and the non-party 4's provisional general meeting of shareholders, and that the non-party 3 and the above non-party 5's general meeting of shareholders did not constitute the above non-party 5' shares.

In light of relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below does not contain any violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of Article 362 or 363 of the Commercial Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Unless the articles of incorporation expressly stipulate that several representative directors jointly represent the company, the resolution of abolition of the joint representative director system by the board of directors does not necessarily require the procedure of modification of articles of incorporation. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is no violation of Article 433 or 434 of the Commercial Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below.

In addition, the fact that the above non-party 5 is recorded as a shareholder of the above company's shareholder registry shall be proved by the plaintiffs who asserted that the above non-party 5 is a shareholder who can oppose the transfer of registered shares. Thus, even if the defendants did not assert this issue, such as the theory of lawsuit, the court below may decide on such issue, and (Records reveals that the above non-party 2 and the defendant 3 are not the shareholder of the above company). Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the judgment below violated the principle of pleading, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the principle of pleading.

In addition, it is clear that the above non-party 1, non-party 4, etc. are the shareholders of the above company, and it is also acknowledged that the plaintiffs (see Chapter 684 of the record). Thus, it cannot be viewed that there is no error of law by failing to clarify whether they are the original shareholders of the above company, such as the theory of lawsuit.

All arguments are not accepted because they criticize or criticize the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, or they do not dismiss the judgment of the court below on the premise of the facts acknowledged by the court below and inconsistent with the facts, or on the premise that the court below was not admitted.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

If a debtor performs a juristic act aimed at a property right with the knowledge that such fraudulent act would prejudice the creditor, the creditor can file a claim by means of filing a lawsuit with the court for revocation of such fraudulent act, and it cannot be asserted as a means of attack or defense in a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da404 delivered on June 13, 1978).

According to the records, the plaintiffs filed a claim for the implementation of provisional registration for preserving the defendants' right to claim ownership transfer of each of the real estate of this case and the procedure for cancellation of each ownership transfer registration completed on the basis of such provisional registration and each of the above provisional registration, and revoked the above fraudulent act by delivery of the preparatory documents dated May 21, 1990, because the legal act between the defendants and the above company, which caused the above provisional registration and the principal registration, constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the plaintiffs, are revoked. Thus, the defendants asserted that they are obligated to cancel the above provisional registration and principal registration as the obligation to restore the original registration (see Chapter 686 of the record). Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs' assertion to the same purport is nothing more than claiming the revocation of the fraudulent act as a mere attack method in the lawsuit, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the method of exercising the right to claim ownership transfer, and in such a case, it cannot be deemed that the court has a duty to explain whether to revoke the fraudulent act against the plaintiffs like theory.

4. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

In a case where a provisional registration has been made for preserving a claim for transfer of ownership in the name of a beneficiary for a real estate owned by an obligor, and the principal registration for transfer of ownership has been completed on that provisional registration, unless the juristic act which is the cause for registration of provisional registration and the juristic act which is the cause for registration of principal registration are clearly different, the legal act which is the cause for registration of principal registration is established, and only the cause for registration, which is the cause for registration of principal registration, shall not be deemed to be a fraudulent act subject to revocation. Thus, a creditor cannot be deemed to have the limitation period for a lawsuit claiming revocation of a fraudulent act separately from the date he becomes aware that the principal registration has been completed, regardless of when he becomes aware of a juristic act which is the cause for registration of provisional registration (see Supreme Court Decision 9

The court below held that since the defendants and the above companies, which were the grounds for registration of the principal transfer of ownership, filed a preliminary lawsuit to cancel the legal act and restore the original registration to their original state, which became the grounds for registration of the above transfer of ownership, and the plaintiffs' preliminary claims claiming the implementation of the procedure for registration cancellation of each principal registration as the restoration to their original state, the plaintiffs were aware on November 2, 1989, at the latest, that the legal act, the grounds for registration of each of the above provisional registrations, which was the grounds for registration, was established in the above defendants' name, constitutes a fraudulent act. On April 15, 1991, after one year from the date, the above provisional registration was completed in order to secure the above defendants' claims against the above companies, and the legal act, which was the grounds for registration, was filed in a preliminary lawsuit to cancel the legal act and restore to their original state, the judgment of the court below is unlawful after the exclusion period was filed. In light of the above legal principles, the judgment below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal principles as to the validity of the lawsuit.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, 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.