(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.02.10 2019가단60181

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) 제주지방법원 2020.02.10 2019가단60181

사해행위취소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. According to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be instituted within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation, and within five years from the date of the juristic act. Since this period is the period for filing a lawsuit, the court shall dismiss the lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act instituted after the period expires as illegal.

In addition, "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation", which is the starting point of the exclusion period in Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code, means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of the creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the debtor becomes aware of the fact that he

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da17535 Decided June 9, 2005, etc.). B.

However, each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, which is acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff had already filed a lawsuit for the revocation of a fraudulent act against CFC on April 17, 2018, and the complaint was 5.8 billion won or more in the amount of debt No. B around 2014, and there was only 10 million won in the aggregate of the value of the property.

In light of the fact that “the instant real estate was indicated as the purport, and the instant real estate was included in 10 real estate, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate due to the cancellation and restitution of the instant legal act on July 31, 2019, when considering that the Plaintiff closely examined the details of the instant real estate B’s property around 2017-2018, and subsequently filed a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act filed in 2018, the Plaintiff, who is the debtor, was aware of the sale of the instant land to the Defendant with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff at the latest around April 2018. It is clear that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate due to the cancellation and restitution of the instant legal act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is filed with an excessive exclusion period.

참조조문

-민법 제406조 제2항

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 6. 9. 선고 2004다17535 판결

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2020.02.10 2019가단60181

-전주지방법원 2017.07.19 2016가단35668

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.19 2017나18568

-전주지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단31635

-대구지방법원 2017.11.23 2016가합206110