Whether trust of the owner of real estate in the name of the owner of real estate in order to avoid compulsory execution constitutes illegal consideration (negative)

The illegal cause stipulated in Article 746 of the Civil Act, which provides for illegal consideration, refers to a case where the cause for providing property is contrary to good morals and other social order, and thus trusting the real estate owner’s name with the intention to escape from compulsory execution does not constitute illegal consideration.

Article 746 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1980, 12777) (Law No. 830, Nov. 22, 1983)

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Attorney Kim Yong-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na34659 delivered on November 7, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4 by the defendant's attorney

The judgment of the court below as to the point out of the theory of lawsuit is just and acceptable in light of the relation of evidence as stated by the court below, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law that erroneously recognized the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the rules of evidence, without making a proper deliberation as to the process of the lawsuit, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the rules of evidence. All the arguments are nothing more than criticize

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 5

The term “illegal cause” under Article 746 of the Civil Act, which provides for illegal consideration, refers to a case where the cause for providing property violates good customs and other social order (see Supreme Court Decision 83Da430, Nov. 22, 1983). Thus, trust with the owner of real estate in order to escape from compulsory execution cannot be deemed to constitute illegal consideration (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1, Apr. 8, 1980). Thus, there is no reason for discussion.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)