Whether it is possible to exercise the right of revocation by the claimant for ownership transfer registration

The right of revocation of a fraudulent act is recognized as the right of revocation for the purpose of remedying general creditors in cases where a debtor has engaged in a juristic act detrimental to the joint security of general creditors, so a creditor who exercises the right of revocation of a fraudulent act cannot be considered as a creditor entitled to exercise the right of revocation of a fraudulent act.

Articles 406 and 407 of the Civil Act

64Da1483 decided Mar. 30, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1863Da1863 decided Nov. 18, 1954; Supreme Court Decision 206Da407 decided Nov. 18, 200)

Korea Assets Management Corporation

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (73Gahap2915) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(Request for Main Enemy)

(1) The sales contract made by the Defendant on May 9, 1972 with Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. and the buildings listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

(2) On May 10, 1972, the defendant performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer and the right to preserve the ownership transfer on behalf of the plaintiff as the Seoul Civil District Court Ansan Registry for the defendant as to the above building. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

(Preliminary Claim)

For the defendant with respect to the buildings listed in the attached list, the defendant shall execute the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer and the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was received on May 10, 1972, by the Seoul Civil District Court Inyang Registry No. 5797,

1. Determination on the claims on this part

In the absence of dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (certificate of sale security), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (certificate of sale security transfer), Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 10-1, and Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6-1, 2 (written evidence, appraisal statement, appraisal statement) which are presumed to have been established by the testimony of non-party No. 2 and 3, and Eul evidence No. 9 (written evidence) which were established by the testimony of non-party No. 4, and Eul evidence No. 9 (written evidence) which were established by the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 5 were recorded in the court below's judgment, and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 5 were recorded in the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 and the defendant No. 9 were recorded in the above provisional registration No. 97 for the above obligation of the same Korea Development Bank. 1 and the non-party No.

The plaintiff asserts that the only asset of the non-party 1 corporation or the non-party 1 corporation was aware of the situation and sought the revocation and restitution of the legal act in order to the effect that the plaintiff had an intention to impair the general creditor who was above the plaintiff, who had completed the provisional registration as above before the defendant. Thus, in this case, it is obvious by the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff intended to achieve the purpose of the cancellation as a fraudulent act in this case is to complete the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the purpose of security in this case. Thus, the right to revoke the fraudulent act is recognized for the purpose of remedying the general creditor in case where the debtor committed a legal act detrimental to the common security of the general creditor. Thus, the creditor who exercised the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer for a specific object cannot be deemed a creditor entitled to exercise the right to revoke the fraudulent act. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Even if the plaintiff's right to claim for ownership transfer registration of a specific object is not only a creditor who exercises the right to claim ownership transfer registration, but also a claim for the preservation of common creditors' joint security, the defendant cannot secure the above provisional registration against the defendant's property by offering the real estate under his own ownership to the bank on July 1970 as collateral and providing the above company with the withdrawal of KRW 76,00,000 in the future,00,00,00,000,00 for the above company, and the defendant's claim for the above provisional registration against the defendant's property cannot be secured as collateral, since the defendant cannot secure the above provisional registration against the defendant's claim against the non-party 30,00,00,00 won for the non-party 1 corporation.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

The plaintiff asserts that the provisional registration of this case, which is the cause of provisional registration of this case, is null and void because of the agreement between the director and the defendant who is the non-party 1 corporation and its director, and even if not, the provisional registration of this case, which is the cause of the provisional registration of this case, has been made in the future by a false declaration of intention. The defendant's director of the non-party 1 corporation, who is the defendant's investment in the non-party 1 corporation, is not subject to the obligation and obligation, and therefore the provisional registration of this case in the future of the defendant should be cancelled by the nullification of the cause. Thus, in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 19 (Board of Directors) and the testimony of the above witness, the non-party 1 corporation can be acknowledged on April 27, 1972 that the board of directors approved provisional registration of this case due to the non-party 1 corporation's interest in cash lending relationship between the above company and the defendant, and it cannot be concluded that the above provisional registration of this case and the above company's share 310.

Thus, the plaintiff's preliminary claim is also groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection and the conjunctive claim are without merit and they are dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with the same result is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the costs of appeal being borne by the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)