2018Na6266 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

A

Law Firm Future, Attorney Park Young-soo

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

B

Changwon District Court Decision 2018Gadan105722 Decided November 7, 2018

June 14, 2019

July 5, 2019

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

As to the real estate stated in the attached list of the judgment of the first instance, the pre-sale agreement entered into on November 24, 2014 between C and the defendant shall be revoked, and the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed as of December 2, 2014 by the Changwon District Court Register No. 70126, the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: "413,875,686 won (=356,958,000 won + X (5 + 291/365)" in Section 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance: "413,875,686 won (= + 356,958,000 won X (5 + 55 + 291/365) x 0.2)"; "the reservation for sale" in Section 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as a pre-sale; and "the second judgment" in Section 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is added to the argument that the defendant made in this court; thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff who is not qualified as a party is unlawful, since the plaintiff is M and the above M was entrusted to the plaintiff with the main purpose of enabling the plaintiff to conduct procedural acts. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff who is not qualified as a party is unlawful.

The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the actual right holder of the claim against C pursuant to the judgment of Changwon District Court 2008Gahap1873, which the Plaintiff had against Changwon District Court 2008Gahap1873, was M or M entrusted the above claim to the Plaintiff for the main purpose of having the Plaintiff conduct litigation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the above argument by the

3. Conclusion

Thus, the first instance judgment is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The average judge of presiding judge

Judges Dok-cheon

Judges Gu Superintendent of the Supreme Court