logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.07.29 2015다235575
사해행위취소
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should, in principle, be arising before an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act was committed. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations which form the basis of the establishment of a claim, and there is high probability that the claim should be established by such legal relations in the near future. In the near future, where the probability is realized and a claim has been established because it was realized in the near future, such

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da27905, Nov. 28, 1995). Here, “the probability of intention”, which is a requirement for the recognition of the obligee’s right of revocation with respect to a claim arising after the obligor’s act of disposal of property, should not be limited to the extent where a claim is likely to occur in the future. At least, there should be objective circumstances in which the obligor’s intention to commit an act of disposal of the obligor’s property should be presumed to have reached the degree that it could have anticipated the occurrence of the claim.

Specifically, whether such high probability exists should be determined objectively by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the details of basic legal relations between the creditor and the debtor, the debtor's property condition and details of change, frequency of occurrence of claims in such situation and the degree of general public's awareness thereof, and the debtor's property disposal act and the occurrence of claims at intervals

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da70788 delivered on December 6, 2002, etc.). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the adopted evidence and sought revocation of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), respectively.

arrow