ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant and the Obligee were married in 1977 and divorced on November 8, 2013. According to Article 839-2 of the Civil Act, one of the parties who have been divorced by agreement may claim a division of property against the other party. So the Defendant and the Obligee made an agreement for a division of property and the Obligee registered the ownership transfer of the instant apartment in his possession to the Defendant on June 27, 2014 based on this agreement. But the Plaintiff filed against Defedant applying for revocation of this agreement and restitution of its original status, arguing that the agreement of division of property fall under the Fraudulent Act described in Article 406(1) of the Civil Act. The Court remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings. In the reasoning the Court admitted that Article 406 may be applied to an agreement for a division of property. But it also determines that the right based on the Article 406 be applied only to the amount proved unduly excessive by the Obligor. To this ruling the author gives a different opinion. The agreement of the division of property in this case can be interpreted as the Fictitious Declaration of Intention in Collusion(Article 108(1) of the Civil Act).

키워드