(영문) 대법원 2015.12.23 2015다219658 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대법원 2015.12.23 2015다219658

사해행위취소

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal that the sales contract of this case is not a fraudulent act, the court below acknowledged that the small property B as of August 5, 2008, which was the date of the sales contract of this case, exceeds the active property, and held that B’s deepening the excess of obligation by concluding a sales contract of this case with the defendant and completing the registration of ownership transfer constitutes a fraudulent act subject to creditor’s right of revocation by an act causing the shortage of common security of all general creditors including the plaintiff. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the objective requirements

2. As to the ground of appeal that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, this part of the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff is an issue of the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which are all the matters of the lower court’s exclusive authority,

Furthermore, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules in its judgment that it is difficult to reverse the presumption of intention by the Defendant and to recognize that the Defendant was bona fide.

3. As to the ground of appeal that the lease deposit should be deducted, this part of the ground of appeal is also an issue of the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which is the exclusive right of the lower court, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal.

Furthermore, even in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules in determining that the instant real estate cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for preferential payment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act at the time of the instant sales contract, or as a lessee of small

4. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법

유사 판례

-대법원 2015. 12. 23. 선고 2015다219658 판결

-대법원 2015.12.10 2015다32950

-대법원 2015.12.10 2015다32417

-대법원 2015.12.23 2015다217522

-대법원 2015.12.23 2015다218716