logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.03.20 2017가단212025
사해행위취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff is the creditor of the corporation C, and the defendant is the spouse of D, the representative director of the above corporation.

D even though it is insolvent, such as having a large number of debts owed to the Plaintiff, it paid the Defendant the deposit for the deposit and paid the money to the Defendant from time to time in the above company.

Since such acts of D and C are apparent to constitute a fraudulent act, the defendant must pay the above money to the plaintiff.

B. As above, due to C’s payment of money without any justifiable reason to the Defendant, the Defendant gains a profit without any legal ground, and the said company suffered a loss.

Therefore, the defendant shall return the above unjust enrichment.

2. The revocation of judgment on a fraudulent act as to the assertion of a fraudulent act may be claimed by means of filing a lawsuit with the court, and cannot be asserted as an attack and defense in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da4859, 48605, Mar. 13, 1998). In cases where a creditor claims revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution pursuant to Article 406(1) of the Civil Act, the creditor may first claim revocation of the fraudulent act and then subsequently claim restitution later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14108, Sept. 4, 2001). However, the right to claim restitution is not recognized unless the revocation of a fraudulent act, which serves as the premise for restitution, and thus, cannot be claimed only for restitution without seeking revocation of a fraudulent act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69162 delivered on December 11, 2008). In the instant lawsuit where the Plaintiff sought monetary payment from the Defendant on the ground that it was a speculative act, the Plaintiff is not only a judgment ordering revocation on the ground that it was a fraudulent act with respect to a legal act which is the cause of the claim seeking restitution, but only a return of money to the original state without seeking revocation in the instant lawsuit.

arrow