Busan High Court-2014-Na52438 (Law No. 21 May 2015)

The deepening the excess of the delinquent's debt through the sale of real estate constitutes a fraudulent act.

The deepening of excess of the debt of the delinquent in excess of the active property through the sale of real estate constitutes a fraudulent act subject to the creditor's right of revocation, which causes the shortage of common security of the general creditors.

2015Da219658 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

NewA

Busan High Court Decision 2014Na52438 Decided May 21, 2015

December 23, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on which the instant sales contract was not a fraudulent act

The court below acknowledged the fact that the newB's passive property as of August 5, 2008, which was the date of the sales contract of this case, exceeded active property, and held that the newB's excessive property by entering into a sales contract with the defendant for the real estate of this case and completing the registration of ownership transfer constitutes a fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation due to an act causing the shortage of common security of general creditors including the plaintiff. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the objective requirements of fraudulent act.

2. As to the ground of appeal that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on this part is an issue of the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority of the lower court, and cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the records in light of the records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules in its judgment that it is difficult to reverse the Defendant’s presumption of intention to commit an act

3. As to the ground of appeal on which deposit for lease should be deducted

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal also pertains to the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority of the lower court, and cannot be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal. Furthermore, even in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, in so determining, that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as meeting the requirements for preferential payment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act at the time of the instant sales contract, or as

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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 on the bench.