beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the instant claim is that the Plaintiff has a claim for the purchase price of KRW 14,527,260 against Nonparty C, and C, on December 13, 2012, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the purchase and sale of the instant real estate on December 3, 2012 to the Defendant on December 13, 2012. As such, the said sale and sale contract constitutes a fraudulent act, the said sale and sale contract is revoked and the registration of ownership transfer is revoked.
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee became aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for the obligee’s right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee became aware of the obligor’s fraudulent act with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. Thus, the mere fact that the obligor was aware of the obligor’s act of disposal of the property is insufficient merely by recognizing the fact that the juristic act was detrimental to the obligee. In other words, it is required to know that the juristic act was an act that the obligor’s act of disposal of the property was insufficient, that is, a lack of joint security for the claim, or a lack of common security
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the obligor’s intent to commit an act of selling his/her own real estate in excess of his/her obligation is presumed to have become a fraudulent act against the obligee, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the obligor’s intent to commit an act of selling his/her own real estate is presumed to have been presumed to have become an obligor’s intentional intent. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, if the obligee knew that the obligor disposed of the real estate in excess of obligation, barring any special circumstance, barr
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da24493 Decided July 27, 2007). B.
According to the purport of the instant case’s health stand, Gap evidence No. 4, and all pleadings, the Plaintiff’s sales contract between C and the Defendant on December 13, 2012 constitutes a fraudulent act, on the ground that the sales contract between C and the Defendant on December 13, 2012 constitutes a fraudulent act.