사해행위취소
1. The Defendant and Nonparty C’s reservation to sell and purchase the real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 signed between the Defendant and Nonparty C as of April 13, 2010, and on April 2012.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:
On April 13, 2010, the Defendant made a pre-sale agreement with Nonparty C on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On April 16, 2010, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”) under the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch registry and the receipt of No. 35994 on April 16, 2010.
B. On August 31, 2012, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C on the instant real estate, and completed the registration for the Dong Branch of Busan District Court and the registration for the transfer of ownership completed on August 31, 2012 under the receipt of No. 81343 (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”).
C. The defendant is the spouse of Nonparty D.
2. The Defendant’s judgment on the main defense of this case was confirmed from time to time by the Plaintiff, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit after the lapse of two years from April 16, 2010 when the provisional registration of this case was completed, which led to the lapse of two years from April 16, 2010. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has lapsed the exclusion period
In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act while being aware that it would prejudice the obligee. It is not sufficient that the obligor merely knows the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property, and it is also necessary to inform the obligor of the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to inform the obligor of the fact that the obligor was aware of the intent to harm the obligor. In this case, the burden of proof as to the lapse
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009, etc.). Written evidence No. 5 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was aware that C had concluded the instant purchase and sale promise and sales contract with the Defendant with intent of murder around April 16, 2010 when the provisional registration of this case was completed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.