beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed at the trial.
3...
Reasons
Basic Facts
In addition, the court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the main claim is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiff's assertion as to the conjunctive claim had a claim against C with the purchase price of KRW 390,00,000 or a promissory note No. 390,000 prior to the assignment of the claim of this case, and C transferred the claim of this case in collusion with the defendant for the purpose of offering collateral for the repayment of the claim of this case, although C was insolvent due to excess of the debt, it is deemed that the act of this case C is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and that the defendant's bad faith, who is the beneficiary, is presumed. Thus, the assignment of the claim of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act
Since the period for exercising the creditor's right of revocation under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code, the court should ex officio investigate whether the period is complied with, and then dismiss the creditor's right of revocation filed after the period expires as illegal.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da110579 Decided April 12, 2012). Furthermore, in the exercise of the right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for the right of 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 had harmed the obligee, so it is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property, and that such a juristic act constitutes an act detrimental to the obligee, namely, that the said act is insufficient to satisfy the obligee as a result of the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security that was already insufficient. Furthermore, it was impossible for the obligor to fully satisfy the claim.