beta
Text
1. The sales contract concluded on October 24, 2012 between the Defendant and C concerning the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is 211,00.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company running the entrusted sales business of agricultural products. Nonparty C registered as the Plaintiff’s intermediate wholesaler from January 21, 1994 to receive agricultural products from the Plaintiff, and then sells them to the general consumers. The Defendant is Nonparty C’s wife, and Nonparty D is Nonparty C’s wife.
B. C completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on October 24, 2012 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the sole real estate owned on December 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3, 28 Evidence, the purpose of the whole pleading
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. On July 25, 2013, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff disposed of the instant real estate to Nonparty E, an employee of the Plaintiff, was aware of the fact that the instant real estate was disposed of from that time.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case brought to seek the revocation of the contract of this case on the ground that the contract of this case was a fraudulent act after a lapse of one year thereafter is unlawful as the exclusion period expires.
B. According to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, when an obligor performs a juristic act aimed at property rights with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee’s lawsuit seeking revocation and restitution should be filed within one year from the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation and within five years from the date the obligee becomes aware of the legal act. In the exercise of obligee’s right of revocation, the obligee’s “date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge
It is not sufficient that the debtor simply stated that he/she has disposed of the property, and furthermore, he/she was aware of the existence of the fraudulent act and intended to know about it to the debtor.