beta
Text
1. The part of the claim for cancellation of the issuance of promissory notes in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.
Reasons
1. The purport of the claim in the civil procedure should be specified by clarifying the contents and scope of the claim in its own way, ex officio whether the revocation of the issuance of a promissory note is lawful (the revocation part). If the purport of the claim is unspecified or unclear, the lawsuit must be dismissed in an unlawful manner.
In this case, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the issuance of the Promissory Notes against the Defendant by Nonparty C, and despite the repeated name of this court, the Plaintiff was the issuer of the Promissory Notes seeking revocation, who is the date of issuance, who is the issuer of the Promissory Notes, who is the date of issuance, the face value, and at any time, who is the date of payment.
Since the cancellation of fraudulent act is five years from the date of the juristic act and one year from the date of becoming aware, it is necessary to clarify the time of the juristic act, but it is not clear when the juristic act was done.
Therefore, this part of the instant lawsuit’s claim is unlawful.
2. Determination on the part of the claim for restitution (re-delivery) is based on the premise that this part of the claim for restitution is revoked, and as long as the part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation of fraudulent act is dismissed as above, there is no reason to believe that it is without merit in light of the circumstances as seen below.
In other words, in order to seek a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act, the preserved claim should be established prior to the fraudulent act, or at least there should be the legal relations that are the basis for the establishment of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act.
However, on June 17, 201, the Plaintiff’s claim for the indemnity of this case, which is the preserved claim, was established by paying the insurance money of KRW 35,301,66 to the Korea Federation, and the Plaintiff’s assertion.