Whether an act of disposal of the sole property of the fidelity guarantor is subject to revocation of fraudulent act

The guarantor under the contract for fidelity Guarantee remains liable to the employer for the amount of damages of 3,490,00 won due to illegal acts. If the guarantor disposes of the real estate which is the only property of himself/herself, the user (creditor) may claim for the cancellation of the above contract.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 66Da1535 decided Oct. 4, 1966 (Article 406(31) of the Civil Act), 408 Ka2258, 14 Do residents 138, 518 Ka259

The Southern Electric Power Corporation

Defendant 1 and three others

Daegu District Court of the first instance (4293 civil petitions212)

The original judgment shall be altered in parallel with each other.

The sale and purchase contract in which Defendant 1 sold land listed in [Attachment 1] to Defendant 2 on May 31, 4293 and Defendant 3 sold land listed in [Attachment 1] to Defendant 4 on May 31, 4293 shall be revoked in entirety.

As to Defendant 1’s land indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 4203, May 31, 4293, the Daegu District Court received Gyeongsan District Court’s registration office, which caused the sale, Defendant 4, as to Defendant 3’s land indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, performed each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration that caused the sale, as the Daegu District Court No. 4209, May 31, 4293, received by the Busan District Court, Daegu District Court No. 4209, which caused the sale.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc. through the first and second trials.

The defendant et al. attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's claim shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials, and the plaintiff's attorney shall seek a judgment of dismissal of public prosecution upon the plaintiff's claim and a judgment of the same place as the conjunctive claim.

In fact, both parties’ statements are stock companies with the purpose of the business related to the plaintiff. The non-party 1 was employed as associate members of the plaintiff company on April 20, 4284. The non-party 2 was promoted to Busan Branch on August 22, 4285, and was exclusively used for the plaintiff company's Daegu Branch on account of its short-term accounting. From April 22, 4286 to August 25, 4292, the non-party 1 was subject to disciplinary punishment for embezzlement and 4293. The non-party 1 and 3 agreed that the non-party 2 was able to obtain monetary compensation from the non-party 4 company for the subsequent five years from the date of sale and purchase of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 was able to obtain monetary compensation from the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 was able to obtain monetary compensation from the non-party 4 company for the subsequent five years from the date of sale and purchase of the non-party 3 company.

In the defendant et al.'s attorney, the defendant 1 and the defendant 3 provided a fidelity guarantee to the non-party 1 as to the plaintiff's assertion on the date of the plaintiff's assertion that the registration as alleged by the plaintiff has been made on the land of dispute, but this is all the parts. In other words, the existence of the obligation and obligation between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 is the site, and each contract for the sale of the land of this case by the defendant et al

As a method of proof, the plaintiff's attorney submitted Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and 3-1 and 2 of the same evidence, and invoked the testimony of non-party Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below's witness Nos. 1 and 2, and the defendant's attorney submitted each evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1, 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, and the defendant's attorney used each testimony of non-party Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the court below's witness No. 3, 5, and 6, and the testimony No. 1 of No. 2 is denied, and the same evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the same evidence are denied.

First, as to the plaintiff's original claim, it is hard to recognize that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 conspired with the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 with the non-party 3 to sell and purchase the land listed in the annexed list No. 2. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2's evidence No. 2 can be acknowledged by the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's assertion that the non-party 4 and the non-party 2's testimony and the non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's assertion that the non-party 4 and the non-party 2's testimony and the non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's assertion that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 2's new testimony and the non-party 5's new statement of claim as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's new statement of claim.

Judges Song-dae (Presiding Judge)