Where a principal registration has been made on the basis of provisional registration, the standard time for determining whether a fraudulent act has been committed.

Where a principal registration has been made on the basis of a provisional registration, unless the juristic act which is the cause of a provisional registration and the juristic act which is the cause of a principal registration are clearly different shall be determined at the time of the juristic act which is the cause of a provisional registration.

Article 406(2) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da14079 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 73) Supreme Court Decision 92Da11008 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 852) Supreme Court Decision 96Da26329 delivered on November 8, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3545)

Korea Housing and Commercial Bank (Attorney Park Han-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Sung-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 97Na3477 delivered on October 23, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where a principal registration has been made on the basis of a provisional registration, whether a juristic act which is the cause of a provisional registration and a juristic act which is the cause of a principal registration meet the requirements for a fraudulent act should be determined at the time of the juristic act which is not clearly different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da14079, Nov. 8, 1991; 92Da1008, Nov. 26, 1993; 96Da26329, Nov. 8, 196).

According to the records, although the provisional registration of this case was completed on January 15, 1996, the non-party who is the owner of the real estate for which the provisional registration was completed was owned a number of real estate at the time when the provisional registration was completed, and received gold 250,000,000 won on February 1, 17 of the same year, which was 17 days after the provisional registration was completed with the land substitution settlement money for one of the real estate. Thus, even if the provisional registration of this case was completed, the non-party is not in a state of insolvency at the time of the provisional registration. Therefore, although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, the conclusion that the non-party did not meet the requirements for fraudulent act is justifiable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the revocation of fraudulent act, as discussed in the judgment below,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)