[1] Whether a fraudulent act is established in a case where a constructor who was insolvent in the course of construction of an apartment transfers his/her claim for the remaining purchase price to a non-corporate association composed of the buyers of the apartment to the non-corporate association and is exempted from the remaining completion of construction and the delivery obligation of the apartment (affirmative)

[2] The legal nature of a house sale guarantee agreement concluded between a housing construction business operator and a registered business under the Housing Construction Promotion Act (=a conditional third party contract)

[1] In a case where the debtor's apartment constructor in collusion with the seller of apartment buildings who is part of the creditor's creditor with the intention of obtaining preferential satisfaction of claims for the buyer of the sale in lots, and the debtor's transfer to the countermeasure council composed of all the buyer of the sale in lots claims to the buyer of the sale in lots, and made other construction companies which guarantee the execution of the construction work of apartment buildings to complete the construction work, and made the buyer of the sale in lots to exempt the debtor from the debtor's remaining completion of the construction work and the debtor's obligation of delivery of apartment as compensation for the assignment of the claim, the transfer of the remaining claim for the sale in lots is transferred to the buyer of the sale in lots due to the debtor's remaining completion of the construction work to the buyer of the sale in lots. Thus, even if the amount of the remaining claim for the sale in lots does not exceed the expenses required for the completion of the remaining construction work

[2] In a case where a registered company submits to the competent authority a notarial deed stating that it will perform the construction completion of an apartment and the cancellation of a mortgage on the site as prescribed by Articles 7 (1) 1, 7 (1) 2 and 7 (3) 2 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of September 1, 1993), the registered company and the registered company entered into a contract for a third party to perform the duty to supply the housing in the sales contract on behalf of the registered company to the persons who entered into the sales contract lawfully with the construction company, unless there are special circumstances.

[1] Article 406 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 147 and 539 of the Civil Act, Article 32 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4675 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 7 (1) 1 and 2 of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1993), and Article 7 (3) 2 of the former Rules on Housing Supply

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Da83 delivered on September 23, 1986 (Gong1986, 2945), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu27198 delivered on November 23, 1990 (Gong1991, 178), Supreme Court Decision 95Da7413 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2261), / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da6592, 6608, 6615, 6622, 639 delivered on May 28, 199 (Gong196Ha, 198), Supreme Court Decision 96Da34863 delivered on December 20, 196 (Gong1996Ha, 198)

Large concrete Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han Man-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Mawon Resolution Committee (Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Na6020 delivered on July 18, 1996

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff transferred the above construction proceeds to the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 who transferred the above construction proceeds to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3'.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

The debtor's act of transferring his claim, which is active property of the non-party company, into payment in kind, to some creditors unless there are any special circumstances, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu27198, Nov. 23, 1990; 95Da7413, May 26, 1995). According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-party company's act of transferring the above remaining claim against the non-party company's above buyers to the defendant association composed of all of the above buyers in collusion with the above apartment buyers, with the intention to obtain satisfaction of the claim first, the non-party company's obligation to complete the construction work and deliver the remaining claim against the non-party company's seller in return for the assignment of the claim, and even if the non-party company's obligation to complete the construction work and transfer the remaining claim to the non-party company's remaining creditors, it does not exceed the remaining claim amount of the non-party company's remaining obligation.

In addition, according to the records, since the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed on the above apartment site, the non-party company's non-party company is bound to obtain the above bonds from the non-party company for the purpose of promptly recruiting occupants without cancelling the mortgage, and the non-party company's right to obtain the remaining bonds from the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-6.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which held that the transfer agreement of the remaining claim of the non-party company cannot be considered a fraudulent act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the creditor's right of revocation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments assigning

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)