beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal on the establishment of fraudulent act
A. In a case where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation shall be determined based on whether the act ultimately causes damage to general creditors, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the subject matter of the act is the weight of the debtor’s entire liability property in the whole liability property; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the justification of the economic purpose of the juristic act and its realization means; and (d) the reasonableness of the pertinent act, which is the means to realize the economic purpose of the juristic act; and (b) the degree of perception of the parties as to
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718 Decided September 30, 2010, etc.). B.
The judgment below
The reasons and records reveal the following facts.
(1) On November 13, 2008, the Seoul Northern District Court 2007Gahap11228 filed a lawsuit against D and 8 others, and received KRW 265,110,000 from C, and at the same time C is paid with KRW 265,110,000, each of the instant apartment, the instant apartment and the instant apartment and the instant apartment and the instant 701 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant apartment, etc.”) with respect to KRW 1/9 shares of each of the instant apartment and the instant apartment and the instant 301 apartment and the instant 701 apartment ( collectively referred to as the “instant apartment, etc.”), and the judgment was finalized as it is.
Luxembourg, despite the judgment above, failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant apartment, etc., and on January 1, 2014, the apartment price of this case between the Defendant and the Defendant is 100 million won.