[1] Whether the limitation period of creditor's right of revocation applies to a case where a person seeks to implement the procedure for cancellation of registration of land due to false conspiracy after one year has passed since the provisional disposition was registered to preserve the right of revocation of fraudulent act against the land (negative)

[2] The point of time to judge the debtor's insolvency as a requirement to exercise creditor's subrogation right (when a pleading is closed)

[3] The case holding that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the transferee of the land is invalid by a false declaration of conspiracy

[1] Where a sale and purchase contract for the land seeks the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation on the ground that there was a false representation in collusion after one year has passed since the registration of provisional disposition was made to preserve the right to claim revocation of fraudulent act on the land, the exclusion period is not applicable unless the lawsuit was brought by the exercise of the right to revoke the registration.

[2] The debtor's insolvency as a requirement for exercising creditor's subrogation right should be determined at the time of closing the argument.

[3] In full view of the time when the debtor transferred the land in the name of the transferee, the debtor's property condition, the company's financial status, the status relationship between the debtor and transferee, the circumstances leading to the failure to repay, the situation leading to the above company's management situation before and after the failure, the transferee's assertion and the market price of the land, etc., the ownership transfer registration in the name of the transferee of the land is completed in collusion with the transferee in order to avoid the obligation to be borne by the above company at the time of the failure to repay the obligation, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer or the right

[1] Articles 108 and 406 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 404 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 108 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 75Da1086 decided Jul. 13, 1976 (Gong1976, 9311)

Specialized Construction Financial Cooperative (Attorney Seo Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Jeon Ha-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2001Kadan13928 Delivered on September 28, 2001

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

A. Defendant 1: (a) the registration of transfer of ownership completed on December 26, 1997 by the Daegu District Court, the Sungju District Court, the Sungju Registry, the receipt on December 26, 1997; (b) the registration of transfer of ownership completed on December 26, 1997 with respect to the land specified in paragraph (2) of the attached Table; (c) the registration of transfer of ownership completed on December 29, 197 by the receipt No. 17450 on the land specified in paragraphs (3) through (5) of the attached Table; and (c) each transfer of ownership completed on December 29, 197 by the receipt of No. 17646 on the land specified in paragraphs (2) through (4) of the attached Table; and (d) the registration of cancellation of each provisional registration of claim for transfer of ownership completed on March 18, 1998 by the same registry office (the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit against Nonparty 1).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment below is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Determination on this safety defense

In regard to the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff, on behalf of the non-party 1 on the grounds that the contract for sale and purchase of each land listed in the separate sheet between the non-party 1 and the defendants (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") and the promise for sale and purchase are false declaration of intent, the plaintiff seeks to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration and provisional registration of ownership transfer right claim (hereinafter referred to as "each registration of this case") in the name of the defendants against the defendants on behalf of the non-party 1 on the grounds that the contract for sale and purchase of each land listed in the separate sheet between the non-party 1 and the defendants, the defendants filed the lawsuit of this case one year after the plaintiff knew that each registration of this case was made in the name of the defendants on each land of this case and completed registration of prohibition of disposition in order to preserve the right to revoke the fraudulent act, so the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful and unlawful for the exclusion period. However, as shown above, the plaintiff did not file the lawsuit of this case

In addition, the defendants asserted that, at the time of the completion of each registration in the name of the defendants, since the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1 was not yet occurred and the non-party 1 was not insolvent, the plaintiff's claim in this case in subrogation of the non-party 1 for the purpose of preserving his claim should be dismissed as it is inappropriate to preserve the plaintiff's claim. However, the debtor's insolvency as a requirement for the exercise of creditor's subrogation right should be determined at the time of the closing of argument. Thus, the non-party 1's insolvency in excess of his obligation should be determined at the time

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statements of Gap evidence 1-1-5, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 3-5, and there is no counter-proof.

(1) On January 23, 1997, the Plaintiff issued to the members operating a specialized construction business a performance guarantee certificate, defect guarantee certificate, advance payment guarantee certificate, etc. to the Mutual Aid Association that issues the performance guarantee certificate, etc. and executes the loan. On October 7, 1997, the Plaintiff loaned the performance guarantee certificate of KRW 1,265,880,000 to the non-party corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party corporation”), which is the Plaintiff’s member, to the guarantee creditor, with the repayment guarantee certificate of KRW 970,000 as the deposit amount of KRW 1,265,80,000 to the non-party corporation as the guarantee creditor. On June 17, 1997.

(2) However, around the end of January 1998, the plaintiff paid 400,000,000 won to the Sungsung Industrial Co., Ltd. on October 2, 1998 and 521,208,903 won to the Young Industrial Co., Ltd. on September 29, 1999, and the plaintiff paid to the non-party company and the non-party 1, who is a joint guarantor, to the Seoul District Court, and the above amount paid to the Sungsung Industrial Co., Ltd. and the non-party 1, who is a joint guarantor, as well as the above amount paid to the non-party company and the non-party 28,780,000 won in total and the costs of lawsuit against the non-party company, and was awarded a favorable judgment on March 16, 200. The judgment became final and conclusive on April 9, 200.

(3) On December 26, 1997, the non-party 1 made a purchase and sale contract with regard to the land listed in Paragraph (1) of the annexed Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "paragraph (1)") on December 17, 1997 with respect to the land located in the annexed Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "paragraph (1) on December 26, 1997, for which the non-party 1 made a purchase and sale contract for the land listed in Paragraph (2) of the annexed Table No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "paragraph (2)") on December 26, 1997 on December 17, 1997; (B) on December 29, 1997, the non-party 1 made a purchase and sale registration for each of the land described in Paragraph (3), (4), and (5) on December 29, 197; and (c) on December 3 through 198, 1998.

B. Party’s assertion and determination

The plaintiff asserts that each of the registrations of this case made in the name of the defendants shall be cancelled as a cause invalidation because they were made on the grounds of a false declaration of intent or a false promise for sale, which is a false declaration of intent, which was made in collusion with the defendants. The defendant 1 had a de facto marital relationship with the non-party 1 at the time, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as a consolation money. The defendant 2 and the defendant 3 borrowed 50,000 won from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 on July 22, 1997, respectively, around July 22, 1997.

살피건대, 갑 제3호증, 갑 제7호증의 1, 2, 갑 제11, 12, 13호증, 을 제1, 2, 6호증, 을 제4호증의 1 내지 8, 을 제5, 7호증의 각 1 내지 6, 을 제8호증의 1, 2의 각 기재, 갑 제14호증의 1 내지 24, 을 제10호증의 각 일부 기재 및 원심 증인 하상우의 일부 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 회사는 소외 1의 개인회사와 다를 바 없이 소외 1 단독으로 운영하여 온 사실, 소외 1은 원고로부터 영풍산업 주식회사를 보증채권자로 하여 앞서 본 바와 같이 발급받은 선급금지급보증서를 영풍산업 주식회사에 제출하고 위 회사로부터의 하도급공사를 위한 자재구입 등의 용도로 사용하기로 하고 1997. 10. 10.경 그 하도급대금의 선급금조로 액면금 합계 9억 7,000만 원의 약속어음을 수령하여 이를 할인하여 사용한 사실, 그런데 그 무렵 이른바 IMF사태가 발생하자 소외 1은 위와 같이 지급받은 선급금을 가지고 있었고, 소외 회사의 어음이 정상적으로 결재되는 등 소외 회사의 경영에 어려움이 발생한 상태도 아니었음에도 IMF사태로 인하여 관련 건설회사 등에 부도가 발생하는 등으로 사업 여건이 어려워지자 하도급공사에 착수하거나 거기에 필요한 자재를 구입하지도 아니한 채 1997. 12. 10. 소외 회사 소유의 굴삭기 2대에 관하여 동생인 소외 2 명의로 근저당권을 설정하여 주었다가 1998. 1. 23.과 같은 달 30.경 각각 소외 2 명의로 소유권이전등록을 마쳐주는 한편 피고들에게 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기 또는 가등기를 경료해 준 사실, 피고 1은 이 사건 제1항 토지를 자녀들의 양육비 등 조로 이전을 받은 것이라고 하거나(갑 제14호증의 14), 소외 1에게 빌려준 돈 약 1억 1,000만 원의 변제에 갈음하여 이전받은 것이라고 하였다가(갑 제14호증의 13) 소외 1과 이혼을 한 뒤에는 소외 1과 이혼하기로 마음먹고 이혼 위자료조로 이전받은 것이라고 진술(갑 제14호증의 20)하였고, 피고 1은 소외 1을 상대로 제기한 이혼 소송(대구지방법원 98드16301호)에서 1999. 2. 9. 승소 판결을 받아 이혼을 하기는 하였으나 그 이후에도 소외 1과 부부로서 자녀들과 함께 동거하면서 생활하고 있는 사실, 소외 1은 1997. 7. 22. 피고 2, 피고 3 명의로 선남농업협동조합으로부터 각각 5,000만 원씩을 대출받았으나, 이 중 피고 2 명의의 대출금은 소외 1의 연대보증하에 이루어졌고, 그 담보로 소외 1 소유인 제2, 제3, 제5항의 각 토지에 채권최고액 7,500만 원의 근저당권설정등기가 경료되어 있으며, 담보로 제공된 위 각 토지의 시가는 위 각 대출원리금을 훨씬 초과하는 금액이므로 피고 2로서는 소외 1이 앞서의 대출금을 변제하지 아니하는 경우에 대비하여 이들 토지의 소유권을 이전받을 이유가 없었던 사실, 한편 소외 1은 피고들 명의로 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기 등을 경료할 당시 피고 1 명의로 수평상호신용금고(조일상호신용금고)에 3억 원 이상의 돈을 예치하여 놓고 있었고, 1998. 1.에만 합계 6억 3,457만 원 상당의 소외 어음을 할인한 사실, 소외 회사는 1998. 1.말경 부도났고, 소외 1은 소외 회사가 원고, 현대자동차써비스 주식회사 등에 대하여 부담하는 채무의 연대보증인으로서 수십억 원의 채무를 부담하고 있는 사실, 이 사건 각 등기 경료 당시 소외 1의 재산은 이 사건 각 토지 외에 대구 남구 대명동 950-5 대 156.7㎡와 그 지상 조적조 슬래브지붕 2층 주택, 경산시 압량면 평산리 231-4. 전 21㎡, 같은 리 230-2. 답 1,676㎡가 있었으나 이 사건 각 토지를 제외한 나머지 부동산은 모두 담보로 제공된 상태이어서 그 피담보 채무를 공제하면 별다른 재산상 가치가 없었으며 이들 부동산은 1999. 3. 5. 임의경매로 낙찰되어 소외 1은 아무런 자력이 없는 상태가 되었던 사실, 또한 대구 남구 대명동 950-5 대 156.7㎡와 그 지상 조적조 슬래브지붕 2층 주택은 소외 1의 사촌 동생인 소외 3 명의로 낙찰되었으나 소외 1이 처인 피고 1 및 그 자녀들과 함께 사용하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이와 같은 사실에 나타난 이 사건 각 토지를 피고들 명의로 이전한 시기와 소외 1의 재산 상태 및 소외 회사의 자금 상황, 소외 1과 피고들 간의 신분관계, 소외 회사가 부도에 이르게 된 경위와 부도 전후의 경영 상황, 이 사건 각 토지의 이전의 이유로 드는 피고들의 주장과 이 사건 각 토지의 시가 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 피고들 명의의 소유권이전등기는, 소외 1이 소외 회사가 부도날 때 자신이 부담하게 될 채무를 면하고자 피고들과 통모하여 매매 또는 매매예약을 가장하여 그 소유권이전등기 또는 소유권이전청구권가등기를 마친 것이므로 이들 각 등기는 원인 없이 경료된 무효의 등기라고 할 것이다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to register cancellation of the provisional registration on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as of December 26, 1997 with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 1997, Defendant 2 is the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 17451, Dec. 26, 1997, the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 17450, the registration of transfer of ownership completed as of December 29, 1997, each transfer of ownership completed as of December 176, 197, and Defendant 3 is the same registry office with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 through No. 3367, Mar. 18, 1998, and thus, Defendant 1 is not obligated to register cancellation of the provisional registration right against Nonparty 1 as the preserved claim against the above nonparty 1, and thus, Defendant 2 is dismissed.

Judges Park Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)