The meaning of "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code

Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code provides that "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the time when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the creditor performed a juristic act while knowing that the creditor would prejudice the creditor, and it is insufficient to simply know the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and it cannot be presumed that the creditor was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act.

Article 406(2) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da2114 Delivered on February 25, 1975

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14888 delivered on May 1, 200

Attorney Lee Jong-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 87Na369 delivered on September 22, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In a lawsuit to exercise the right of revocation, the obligee is required to file a lawsuit within one year from the date on which the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). Here, the obligee’s knowledge of the cause for revocation refers to the time when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligee performed the legal act while being aware of that it would prejudice the obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da2114, Feb. 25, 1975). It is insufficient to say that the obligee merely knew of the objective fact of fraudulent act. Therefore, in this case, in this case, Nonparty 1, the obligor, does not mean the time when the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the provisional registration was made by the obligee, but it means the time when the Plaintiff, the obligee, was aware of the fact that the provisional registration was made by the obligee, and thus, it cannot be presumed that the Plaintiff knew of the cause for revocation.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the starting point for the period of exercising the right of revocation of fraudulent act from the contrary point of view.

On the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, since it is not recognized that the plaintiff was aware of the cause for cancellation one year prior to the filing date of the lawsuit in this case, and it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff was aware of the cause for cancellation one year prior to the filing date of the lawsuit in this case, due to the testimony by Non-Party 7 (Protocol of Statement), Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 1, the witness of the court below, and Non-Party 1, it is acceptable to find the evidence and fact-finding of the court below, and the evidence No. 2-1 through No. 4, cannot be admitted as evidence to acknowledge such facts. Thus, there

There is no reason for this issue.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)