[1] In a case where a principal registration has been made on the basis of provisional registration, the standard time to determine whether the requirements for fraudulent act have been met (=the time of legal act which caused the provisional registration)

[2] The meaning of "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code where the debtor sells real estate, which is the sole property

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the creditor was aware of the fact that he committed a fraudulent act knowing that he would prejudice the creditor at the time of provisional seizure, in case where the creditor was aware that there was no other property after investigating the debtor's property status with the knowledge that provisional registration has been made for the only property of the debtor

[1] Where a principal registration has been made on the basis of provisional registration, unless the legal act which is the cause of provisional registration and the legal act which is the cause of principal registration are clearly different, whether the requirements for a fraudulent act are satisfied shall be determined at the time of the legal act which is the cause of provisional registration.

[2] Unless there are special circumstances, it is easy for the debtor to sell and consume real estate, which is the only property, and to change it into money which is easily for consumption, a fraudulent act is deemed a fraudulent act, and the debtor's intent of deception, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of joint security for claims, and thus, it does not require or intent to harm the creditor. If the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property, and alters into money which is easily for consumption, it is presumed that the debtor's intent is reasonable if the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property, and if the creditor knows that there is no specific property other than the pertinent real estate, the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the creditor was aware of the fact that he committed a fraudulent act despite being aware that there was a provisional registration on the only property of the debtor, and that there was no other property, and that there was a provisional seizure on the debtor's property after investigating the debtor's property status with knowledge that there was no other property

[1] Article 406 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code / [3] Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da14079 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 73), Supreme Court Decision 92Da1008 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 852), Supreme Court Decision 96Da26329 delivered on November 8, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3545), Supreme Court Decision 97Da51919 delivered on March 10, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 98Sang, 988) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 66Da1535 delivered on October 4, 196 (Gong14-3, 130), Supreme Court Decision 9Da263989 delivered on September 26, 198 (Gong1963, 197Da196379 delivered on September 26, 197).

(Attorney Han-han, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 97Na15973 delivered on December 9, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In cases where a principal registration has been made on the basis of provisional registration, unless it is clearly different from the legal act which is the cause of provisional registration and that which is the cause of principal registration, whether a fraudulent act meets the requirements ought to be determined at the time of the legal act that caused the provisional registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da51919, Mar. 10, 198; 92Da11008, Jan. 26, 1993). Furthermore, barring any special circumstance, it would be a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, that a debtor sells real estate, which is the sole property, and alters to a money that is easy for the debtor to consume, constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the debtor’s intentional intent, which is the subjective element of a fraudulent act, would not be prejudicial to the creditor, and that if the debtor sells real estate with ease to consume it, it would be presumed that the debtor would have known that he did not have any property, i.e., the creditor, 1967., 196.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff confirmed on July 10, 1996 that the apartment of this case, which is the only property of the non-party, the debtor, has made a provisional registration based on the purchase and sale reservation under the name of the defendant, and that there was no other property as a result of investigating the property status thereof, and first received a provisional attachment order on July 15, 1996. The court below determined that the plaintiff knew that the non-party, at least around that time, sold the apartment of this case to the defendant with the knowledge that he would harm

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the starting point of the exercise period of creditor's right of revocation. The grounds for appeal cannot be

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)