case where the act constitutes fraudulent act

If the non-party who is liable for damages caused by the traffic accident to the plaintiff concludes a sales contract to sell his own real estate to the defendant in bad faith, the above contract may be revoked as a fraudulent act unless the defendant who is the beneficiary proves that he is bona fide.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1138 delivered on April 12, 1962, 4294Da1138 delivered on April 12, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 6984 delivered on October 18, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 10Du147 delivered on April 6, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 64Da1743 delivered on April 6, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 17Da1794 delivered on May 31, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 65Da548 delivered on May 31, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 406Da2407 delivered on October 18, 196, Supreme Court Decision 66Da1447 delivered on April 28, 194, Supreme Court Decision 2008Da214829 delivered on June 28, 209).

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo Branch of the Seoul District Court (79 Ghana1859)

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The purchase and sale reservation as of April 20, 1979 on the real estate recorded in the attached list between the defendant and the non-party 1 shall be revoked.

3. On October 19, 1979, the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership on the real estate stated in the separate sheet against the plaintiffs as to the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership under No. 40604.

4. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

In light of the whole purport of the pleading No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 7, and No. 3, which are acknowledged to be a farcing so that there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that a provisional registration against the defendant as to the real estate stated in the attached list No. 1, which is owned by the non-party No. 1, was made by the right holder, and there is no other dispute between the parties, and the contents of No. 1, No. 2, which are acknowledged to be a farcing so that they were brought to the court in accordance with the whole purport of the pleading No. 9, No. 2, and the whole purport of the pleading No. 1, No. 2, the plaintiffs are the wife of the plaintiff No. 1, and the rest of the plaintiff No. 2, an employee of the non-party No. 1, who is the non-party No. 9, cannot be found to be the plaintiff No. 1's farcing of the above 90-party No.2's debt.

Therefore, in fact, the plaintiffs' claims against the non-party 1 should be accepted, because the non-party 1's promise to purchase and sell as of April 20, 1979, which was entered into with the defendant as of April 20, 1979, with the knowledge that it would harm the plaintiffs, after the occurrence of the plaintiffs' claims against the non-party 1, is not sufficient evidence to recognize that the defendant could not know that the plaintiffs, at the time of the above promise to sell and purchase as of April 20, 1979, did not know that the defendant would harm the plaintiffs, who are the creditors, at the time of the above promise to sell and purchase, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of provisional registration of the entry in the order of provisional registration as to the real estate recorded in the attached list, as it is with merit.

Judges Park Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)