logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.07.09 2019나2049022
사해행위취소 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the first instance judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the judgment on the assertion that the Defendant emphasizes or adds in this court, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense or argument

A. As to the exclusion period and defense, the plaintiff filed an application for a provisional seizure or payment order through J with a law firm to secure the claim against D and C, and on August 23, 2017, the plaintiff issued or perused a copy of the register of each of the real estate of this case on August 23, 2017. Accordingly, C knew that each of the real estate of this case was donated to the defendant at the time of the death. Thus, the lawsuit of this case filed for one year thereafter is unlawful because the exclusion period expires. 2) The date when the creditor, the starting point of the exclusion period in exercising the right of revocation, "the date when the creditor became aware of the cause of revocation", means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the creditor would prejudice the creditor, namely, the fact that the creditor performed the act of disposal of the property of this case was insufficient merely because it was insufficient for the creditor to have known that the legal act was detrimental to the creditor, or that the creditor had become aware of the lack of the objective reason for revocation of the claim.

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280 Decided July 4, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280 Decided October 4, 2009

arrow