Revocation of fraudulent act and burden of proof for the subsequent purchaser in good faith;

In fraudulent act, there is a burden of proof against the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser in good faith.

Article 406 of the Civil Code, Article 424 of the former Civil Code

Korea

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 60No425 delivered on December 29, 1960

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are as shown in the attached Table.

In a fraudulent act, the burden of proof that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser was unaware of the creditor at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchaser's fraudulent act is deemed to be the system under the former Civil Act or the provisions of the Civil Act regarding the revocation of the fraudulent act, and thus, the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser may be deemed to be the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser, and the revocation of the fraudulent act and restoration to its original state, unless there is any proof, and even by each testimony, which is an applicable evidence in the original judgment, it cannot be deemed that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser was the bona fide good faith, there is a violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment that the revocation of the fraudulent act is not against the rules of evidence. Therefore, when the fraudulent act is revoked, it can only be revoked by a judgment containing the formative nature of the declaration of the revocation, and without such revocation, the creditor cannot file a declaration of revocation with the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, and according to the purport of the claim for entry in the original judgment, if the plaintiff files a declaration of revocation of the fraudulent act along with a claim for restoration in the original judgment, it should be reversed.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-ho (Presiding Judge)