Suwon District Court 2013 Doz.11556 ( November 21, 2013)

Each contract of this case shall be revoked because it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant must implement the procedure for cancellation registration for each registration to the contractor with reinstatement.

The act of the original contractor of the instant real estate as collateral or selling the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is a related party, constitutes a fraudulent act; in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the contracting party, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary

2013Na2032510 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

AAAAA of an agricultural corporation

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Da11556 Decided November 21, 2013

June 17, 2014

July 15, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The order of the first instance court shall be corrected to 'No. 00000', which means 'No. 1-b. 1-b. 1-b. 000.

1. Purport of claim

With respect to the real estate listed in the attached list of the judgment of the first instance court, the defendant and ChoA respectively cancel the sales reservation and superficies contract concluded on April 15, 201, and the sales contract concluded on September 20, 201, and the defendant will cancel the sales contract concluded on September 20, 201. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed on April 7, 201 by the receipt of No. 0000 of the Suwon District Court's receipt of the provisional registration on April 20, 2010, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership completed on April 20, 2000, the registration of creation of superficies completed on the same date as the same registry office, and the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed on November 7, 2011 by the receipt of No. 00000 of the same registry office (which is written in the

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

Pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasons for the judgment of the first instance shall be cited for the reasons of this judgment: Provided, That the court of first instance shall dismiss "00-00" as "00-00 (A3-11) of the same Ri" as "5 of the judgment of the first instance," and shall add the arguments of the defendant and the judgment thereof in the following paragraphs.

2. The defendant's assertion and the judgment thereon

A. The assertion

The Defendant, even before August 10, 201, known the fact that the provisional disposition of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund was completed with respect to the provisional registration of this case on or around August 10, 201, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that each of the instant registrations was based on the fraudulent act. At the latest, the Plaintiff knew that each of the instant registrations was based on the fraudulent act around November 7, 201 when the Plaintiff was notified of the cancellation of each of the instant provisional registration. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit filed on May 31, 2013 was filed after the lapse of one year from the exclusion period.

B. Determination

1) Around August 10, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the instant provisional registration, even though the Credit Guarantee Fund knew of the completion of provisional disposition to preserve the right to claim cancellation of provisional registration of right to claim cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant provisional registration, it is insufficient to recognize that each of the instant registrations including the instant provisional registration was based on the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act against the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19435, Jul. 11, 2003).

2) In addition, taking into account the circumstances in the first instance trial and the circumstances that the Plaintiff was selected as a person subject to tracking investigation on February 13, 2013, and that the preparation and investigation on the tracking investigation on the concealed property was commenced on March 2013 (the purport of the entire pleadings) and that the Plaintiff’s major evidence (i.e., documents issued or obtained from March 13, 2013 to April 8, 2013) were all submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was aware that each of the instant registrations was based on the Defendant’s fraudulent act against the Plaintiff around November 7, 2011 upon receipt of notice of cancellation of each of the instant attachment registration. The Defendant’s assertion in this part is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. However, since the 'Na No. 1' of the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous, 'No. 00000', it is corrected to 'No. 000'.