(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.12 2017나89997

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.12 2017나89997

사해행위취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance is acknowledged as legitimate in finding the facts and the judgment of the court of first instance even if the evidence No. 6-1 to 3, No. 7, No. 11, No. 12, No. 14, and No. 13-1 to No. 13-3 are presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Defendant in this court. As such, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. On June 20, 2013, Seoul Southern District Court 2013Kahap10650, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion was aware of the details of remitting KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on April 30, 2013 and May 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant monetary payment”).

However, the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of each of the instant monetary payments by asserting that the Plaintiff’s act of paying each of the instant monetary payments was a fraudulent act was filed with the lapse of one year thereafter.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is unlawful because it was filed with the exclusion period.

B. A lawsuit for revocation is filed within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). “The date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation,” which is the starting point in the exercise of obligee’s right of revocation, means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation, namely, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the obligee would prejudice

At this time, the creditor was aware of the cause of cancellation.

참조조문

-민법 제406조 제2항

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.11.01 2018나61741

-서울고등법원 2017.05.25 2016나2066538

-부산지방법원 2016.01.15 2015나45649

-대법원 2018.04.10 2016다272311

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.21 2015나54256