logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2007. 12. 12. 선고 2007나54353 판결
유일재산을 증여계약을 체결한 소유권이전등기는 사해행위에 해당함.[국승]
Title

Registration of transfer of ownership for which a donation contract of property is entered into shall constitute fraudulent act.

Summary

Unless there are special circumstances, the gift agreement constitutes a fraudulent act knowing that the gift agreement would decrease the liability property of the general creditors, including the plaintiff, and would prejudice it, insofar as it becomes insolvent by transferring the real estate of this case, which is the only property to the defendant.

Related statutes

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. The contract of donation on March 5, 2004 between the defendant and ○○○ on the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 88,080,790. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 88,080,790 with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The reasons stated by the court in this case are as follows: "Evidence A or A No. 11" was added to evidence described in the second, fifth, and sixth of the judgment of the court of first instance; "Evidence B or B No. 11" was added to evidence described in the fourth and fifth of the judgment; "No. 7 or B No. 11 was cancelled"; "The market price of the real estate of this case as of the date of closing the argument of this case is KRW 304,00,000" was added; "No. 23,875,432 won" of the third and third half of the judgment was "no. 23,875,483 won"; "No. 76,537,522 won" of the sixth, third and fifth of the judgment was "no. 76,537,573 won"; and "no. 25,2742,427,27427" of the Criminal Procedure Act was "no. 276,27427,427" of the judgment.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow