Abstract
This article is about the legal theory that a creditor can receive relief when a beneficiary fails to fulfill the obligation to purchase stocks after a judgment of restitution of the original property that orders the beneficiary to repurchase and return the stocks due to the cancellation of a fraudulent transfer. The court has limitedly recognized compensation for delay in performance (Article 395) and has recognized the claim for substitue in other cases. However, the author reviewed the temporal scope of the res judicata and maintain that the legal theory that recognizes the money judgment (in fraudulent transfer cases) is appropriate when there is a cause that occurred after the prior judgment for the restitution of the original asset. Furthermore, the result of the subject case is derived from the method of restitution of the original property in which the name of the property is directly returned to the debtor. In the method of restitution of the original property, such as in the United States and Germany, where the property in the name of the beneficiary is left as is and executed, the counterparties of compensation in value and execution(returning assets) do not change. I hope that alternatives that can minimize the occurrence of separate impossible circumstances will be discussed in the future legislative process of restoring creditors' cancellation rights.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
