The order of cases where the assignment of claims is a fraudulent act and the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act;

Where a lessee’s act of transferring a lease deposit to a lessor A in substitution for repayment of the obligation to refund a lease deposit to a sub-lessee A becomes a fraudulent act against a sub-lessee B, the case revoking the entire contract of transfer even if the amount of the claim to refund a lease deposit by sub-lease B falls short of the amount of the lease deposit refund claim

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Hong, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Han Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The bond transfer and takeover contract dated January 13, 1996 between the defendant and the non-party 1 ( Address: hereinafter omitted) shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall notify the non-party 2 (resident in Seongbuk-gu (resident omitted) of the cancellation of the credit transfer and takeover contract stated in paragraph (1) on the claims stated in the attached list to the non-party 2 (resident in Seongbuk-gu).

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, 5, 16-16, 25, 25-2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-1, and 2-2, and 1-2 of the party members' fact inquiry into Seoul Credit Information Company, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

A. On August 31, 1994, Nonparty 1 leased, respectively, from Nonparty 2, the deposit amount of KRW 120,000,000 for the entire building of the 1st underground floor and the 3rd floor steel-frame slive community living facilities on the ground (only the instant building) owned by Nonparty 2 of Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number omitted), for two years from July 15, 1994; the monthly rent was KRW 2,00,000 for the first year; and KRW 3,00,000 for the following one year, respectively.

B. On June 20, 1994, Nonparty 1 agreed on June 20, 1994 that the deposit amount of about 40 square meters in total among the parts of the first and second floor of the instant building shall be KRW 70,000,000, monthly rent shall be KRW 1,300,000, and the period shall be four years, but the lessee’s name under the contract shall be the same as the Defendant’s father’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s and the lessee’s lessee’s lessee’s lessee’s name on October 25, 1994 shall be KRW 50,00,00,00, respectively,

C. In addition, on February 11, 1995, Nonparty 1 lent approximately 40 square meters among the first floor of the instant building to the Plaintiff on a two-year basis, respectively, for deposit money of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and for the period of KRW 2 years.

D. On January 9, 196, when Nonparty 1 sub-leases part of the building of this case to the Defendant without his consent, and the monthly rent was delayed for not less than six months, Nonparty 2 demanded the Plaintiff, even after the termination of the above lease agreement with Nonparty 1, and on January 9, 1996, the Plaintiff notified Nonparty 1 of the termination of the said sub-lease agreement. The Plaintiff notified Nonparty 1 of the termination of the said sub-lease agreement.

E. Meanwhile, on January 13, 1996, upon receipt of the notice of termination of the lease agreement from Nonparty 2 as above, Nonparty 1 transferred the above security deposit refund claim (limited to the claim stated in the attached list; hereinafter the same shall apply) it has against Nonparty 2 in lieu of repayment of the above obligation to refund each sub-lease deposit to the Defendant. On the 25th of the same month, Nonparty 1 notified Nonparty 2 of the above transfer and reached Nonparty 2 at that time.

F. At the time of notification of the transfer of the instant security deposit claim, Nonparty 1 did not have any specific assets other than the instant security deposit refund claim.

2. Determination:

The debtor's act of repaying his properties to one of the creditors is at the same time with the reduction of a negative property, and thus, it cannot be deemed a fraudulent act. However, in case where the debtor, who was not in excess of his debts, is in collusion with one of the creditors and is entitled to preferential satisfaction of his claims, it constitutes a fraudulent act. According to the above facts, the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case against the defendant is the only property for which the plaintiff can execute the above claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case against the defendant 1. Since the non-party 1 transferred the above claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case to the defendant and the plaintiff 1 did not actually incur the plaintiff's claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case before January 25, 196, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who is the foundation of the establishment of the sub-lease deposit of this case, should return the deposit deposit of this case to the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, who is the plaintiff 1, the above sub-lease of this case without permission.

In this regard, the defendant was one of the above claims against the non-party 1 for the return of the deposit for sub-lease, and the non-party 1 was aware that there was sufficient property to the non-party 1 and the repayment of the obligation to return the deposit for sub-lease to the plaintiff was not problematic, and the non-party 1 acquired the claim to return the deposit for the lease of this case in lieu of the repayment of the above loan pursuant to the non-party 1's proposal. Thus, the non-party 4's testimony to this effect is a bona fide beneficiary. However, the non-party 4's testimony to this effect cannot be trusted in light

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the contract for the transfer and takeover of the claim of this case between the defendant and the non-party 1 ( Address: 120,000,000 won - 120,000 won - 120,000 won - 1,000 won - 1,000 won - 1,000 won - 1,000 won - 1,000 won - 1,000 won - 13, 1996 cannot be exempted from the revocation of the contract for the transfer and takeover of the claim of this case to the non-party 1 for the transfer and takeover of the claim of this case to the non-party 1 (the plaintiff 1,00,000 won - 1,000 won - 1,000,000 won - 10,000 won - 1,000 won - and 2,000 won - in proportion to the above transfer and takeover claim of this case.)

Judges' profit margin (Presiding Judge)