beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs' lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part concerning the conclusion of April), except for the dismissal as follows. Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Attachment] The head of Mapo-gu Tax Office shall dismiss the Mapo-gu Tax Office as the "the head of Mapo-gu Tax Office" in 6th 10th of the judgment of the first instance.
In the 12th sentence of the first instance trial, the term “at the time of the closing of the instant argument” as “at the time of the closing of the oral argument in the trial.”
The 12th court's 7th court's 7th court's 7th court's 14th court's 6th court's eths as follows.
Defendant L asserts that this part of the lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act and the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is unlawful with the lapse of the exclusion period. A lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution to the original state must be brought within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the grounds for revocation, and within five years from the date of the juristic act (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). Here, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the grounds for revocation” refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the facts that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. If the obligee was aware of the grounds for revocation, it is insufficient to say that the obligor was merely aware of the fact that the obligee performed the act of disposal of the property, and that the obligor was aware of the intent to harm the obligor’s intent to dispose of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23857, Sept. 24, 2002; 203Da4286, Dec. 12, 2003).
Therefore, the debtor disposes of real estate which is the only property, and the debtor disposes of it in addition to that real estate.