logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.29 2017나2017595
사해행위취소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the second to nine through nine (7) of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

B. The debtor's disposal of real estate owned by him/her in excess of his/her obligation to determine whether he/she was a fraudulent act in relation to another creditor, except in extenuating circumstances. However, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's disposal of real estate in excess of his/her obligation does not constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring special circumstances, if the debtor's disposal of real estate in excess of his/her obligation is the best way to continue his/her business by financing funds in a situation where it is difficult to continue his/her business due to the financial difficulties, and if he/she disposes of real

(See Supreme Court Decisions 200Da50015 Decided May 8, 2001, and 2001Da57884 Decided December 12, 2003, etc.). Moreover, in determining the debtor’s intention of deception, the circumstances at the time of the fraudulent act should be based, as well as the circumstances leading up to the act alleged as a fraudulent act, and the debtor’s efforts to repay after the act, etc. should be taken into account together with other circumstances in determining whether the debtor’s intention of deception exists.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Da31940 delivered on December 8, 200, 2001; 2001Da57884 delivered on December 12, 2003, etc.). Such legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where a debtor reduced a negative property by allowing the creditor to act on behalf of another creditor in return for transferring the movable property owned by him/her to a specific creditor.

arrow