logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.07.21 2014다87571
사해행위취소
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order for a false declaration of intention to be established, there is an agreement between the other party as to the disagreement and the other party. If a third party directly puts his seal and affixes his seal on loan-related documents, such as a letter of loan for consumption, etc. as the principal debtor or joint guarantor, the third party himself expresses that he is the debtor of the loan for consumption, and the third party has expressed his intention to have another person use the loan under the name of the third party by avoiding the credit restrictions set by the financial institution,

Even if the principal and interest are to be repaid at the expense of another person, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, this is merely an intention to vest economic effects under a loan for consumption in another person, and the legal effect cannot be deemed to be an intention to vest in another person. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there is a disagreement between the truth and indication of a third party

Therefore, in order to recognize the existence of such special circumstances in a specific case, it is necessary to actively prove that a financial institution belongs to the actual borrower and to the name trustor the legal effect of the loan in question, and that it has agreed or understood that the name trustor will not bear the debt burden.

(2) On June 12, 2008, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the instant loan contract was concluded between Busan 2 Savings Bank (hereinafter “BB Savings Bank”) and B, and the Plaintiff, as the general successor of Busan 2 Savings Bank, has a monetary claim equivalent to the balance of the instant loan against B, and the said claim becomes a preserved bond of the obligee’s right of revocation.

Furthermore, the court below held that the loan contract of this case is invalid as a false declaration of agreement.

arrow