Sale of real estate or offer of security and fraudulent act

In a case where a debtor conducts an act of disposal such as selling or offering all his own real estate as collateral to the defendants, and thereby expresses the result that the debtor does not have any assets enough to repay his obligation owed to the plaintiff, the debtor, in the absence of any evidence to prove that there are special circumstances, shall be deemed to have done the above legal act with the knowledge that the debtor would harm the plaintiff who is the creditor.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

66Da1535 decided Oct. 4, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 2258 delivered on Oct. 27, 1956; Supreme Court Decision 5605 delivered on Oct. 27, 195, Supreme Court Decision 406Da1535 delivered on Oct. 4, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 2258 delivered on Oct. 258, 196; Supreme Court Decision 14Du138 delivered on Oct. 13, 196; Decision 406(31)408 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Seoul Central District Court (63 Ga3025) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

소외 1이 ㈀ 1963.3.11. 별지목록 제1항 기재의 각 부동산에 관하여 피고 1과의 사이에 한 매매 ㈁ 1963.3.10. 별지 목록 제2항 기재의 각 부동산에 관하여 피고 2와의 사이에 한 매매 ㈂ 1963.3.10. 별지목록 제3항 기재의 부동산에 관하여 피고 3과의 사이에 한 매매 및 ㈃ 1963.3.13. 별지목록 제4항 기재의 각 부동산에 관하여 피고 4와의 사이에 한 최고액을 금 70만 원으로 한 근저당권설정게약은 이를 각 취소한다.

As to each real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 2,269, Defendant 1 followed the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on March 11, 1963, which was received on March 11, 1963 by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court, and the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on March 10, 1963, which was made on March 10, 1963 as the receipt date of the registration office No. 2,270 as to each real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2,271 as to each real estate listed in paragraph (4) of the attached Table No. 4 of the same registry office.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

Paragraph (1) of the attached list shall cancel the sale of each real estate between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1.

Defendant 1 shall implement the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on March 11, 1963, in Seoul Civil District Court No. 269 dated March 16, 1963.

An act of trading between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 2 concerning each real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached list shall be revoked.

On March 10, 1963, Defendant 2 implemented the procedure for the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as set forth in No. 2,270 of the receipt date of the same registry office with respect to such real estate.

The sale of real estate in paragraph (3) of the attached list shall be revoked between the non-party 1 and the defendant 3.

Defendant 2 shall comply with the procedure of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale on March 10, 1963, which was received on March 18, 1963 by the registry office No. 277 of the same registry office.

Paragraph 4 of the Attachment List revokes the mortgage contract between Defendant 4 and Nonparty 1 with respect to each real estate. The Defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of KRW 700,000 won for the maximum debt amount as set forth in No. 271 of March 16, 1963 with respect to the same real estate.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants in the first and second instances, and the defendants' attorney is seeking a judgment dismissing the appeal.

Of the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2's name as to each of the above real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 5, and the real estate No. 2 as to the non-party 1 and the defendant 3 as to each of the above real estate No. 4 as to the non-party 6's claim No. 9, and the fact that each of the registration of the transfer of ownership was established over 700,000 won against the defendant 4 as to each of the real estate set forth in the separate sheet No. 4 is without dispute between the parties and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's testimony.

Next, according to the statements in the separate sheet Nos. 7-2 and the testimony of Nonparty 5, which are all the property owned by Nonparty 1, as seen earlier, Nonparty 1 performed an act of disposal, such as selling to the Defendants, offering as security, etc., that there is no other property, and suggesting that there is no remaining property for the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff’s obligation. In this case where there is no evidence to acknowledge that there are special circumstances, Nonparty 1 performed the above legal act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, which is the obligee.

원고는 소외 1과 파고들은 본건 부동산을 매매하거나 또는 금전대여 사실이 없는데도 허위의 의사표시로서 매매 또는 금전대여 사실이 이쓴 것처럼 가장하고 등기하였다고 주장하나 갑 제4호증의 기재와 당심증인 소외 5의 증언만으로서는 피고들의 원고 주장과 같이 허위위사표시로서 가장등기를 하였다고 인정할 수 없고 달리 원고 주장사실을 승인할 만한 자료가 없으나, 앞에서 인정한 바와 같이 소외 1이 채권자인 원고를 해하을 알고 처분행위를 하였으니 수익자인 피고들은 본건 부동산에 대한 권리르 취득할 당시에 악의이었다고 추정할 것인바, 피고들은 모두 소외 1이 채권자인 원고를 해함을 모르고서 이 법률행위를 하였고 특히 피고 1은 별지목록 제1항 기재의 각 부동산에 대한 소외 1과 동 피고 사이의 매매는 원고 주자의 채권발생 전에 정지조건부로 성립된 것이라고 주장하므로 살피건대, 을 제3호증의 2,3의 각 기재만으로서는 피고 1이 위 부동산을 그 주장과 같이 정지조건부로 매수하였다고 인정할 수 없고 을 제2호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제6호증의 1 내지 7의 각 기재와 원심증인 소외 6의 증언이 피고들이 본건 부동산을 매수 또는 근저당권설정을 함에 있어 선의이었다는 사실을 뒷받침하는 듯하나 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 16, 갑 제3호증의 각 기재와 원심증인 소외 6의 일부증언(1963.3.14. 피고들 명의의 등기신청서를 제출코저 하였으나 원고가 10분전에 등기하여 못했다는 취지의 증언부분)을 종합하면, 원고가 본건 부동산에 관하여 채무자인 소외 1을 대위하여 소유권보존등기를 하여 그 대위등기 사실이 등기부사엥 기재되어 있으며 피고들 앞으로의 각 등기는, 1963.3.16. 또는 1963.3.18.에 끝났다는 사실을 인정할 수 있는 점에 비추어 볼 때 피고들 주장에 부합하는 듯한 위의 각 증거는 피고들의 선의를 단정하는 자료로 할 수 없으며 그 밖에 피고들의 선의를 용인할 만한 아무 자료가 없고 오히려 위의 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 16, 갑 제3호증의 각 기재에 의하여 피고들은 원고의 대위등기 사실을 알고서 각가 매매 또는 근저당설정계약을 하였음을 인정할 수가 있다.

Therefore, the defendants, knowing that the non-party 1 would harm his creditor, acquired each ownership or right to collateral, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition and there is no other defense of the defendants. For this reason, the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer of each ownership or right to collateral security between the non-party 1 and the defendants, along with the cancellation of the above sale act or the act of creation of collateral security and the cancellation of the registration of creation of collateral security, is justified. Thus, the original judgment with different purport is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is recognized to be reasonable, and therefore the original judgment is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 386, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)