2. The appeal costs and incidental appeal costs shall be borne respectively by each person;

The contract to establish each right is revoked as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the list (attached Form) concluded between the defendant and the non-party YC. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 300,000,000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall notify the non-party YC Co., Ltd to the effect that he transferred the claims listed in paragraph (3) of the list (attached Form) to the non-party EXE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter omitted), and that he transferred the claims listed in paragraph (3) of the list to the non-party YC Co., Ltd.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The contract to establish a pledge right as stated in paragraph (1) of the list (attached Form) concluded between the defendant and Thai F&C is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 290,732,667 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day on which this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall notify the plaintiff that he transferred the claim as stated in paragraph (3) of the list (attached Form) to Thai F&C and transferred the claim as stated in paragraph (3) of the same Article to the non-party Republic of Korea (Seoul Central District Court Deposit System) [attached Form] to the non-party corporation Tae F&C.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the parties to the instant case, and all of them are the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The addition;

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

1) The assertion

A) Defendant

On March 30, 201, the Defendant received a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act from the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, etc., who is the obligees of Thai F&C, or a request for the distribution of the received amount pursuant to the second pledge contract. The Defendant sought legal advice from the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Kahap54660, which won in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act and paid money pursuant to the final judgment, to Nonparty 1, who already became final and conclusive, was exempted from liability to all other obligees. Therefore, on March 30, 2011, the Defendant recovered the full value by paying KRW 300 million to Nonparty 1, who is the creditors of Thai F&C, based on the said final judgment. Accordingly, the part seeking revocation of the second pledge contract and the payment of the value is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

B) Plaintiff

The instant lawsuit was filed prior to Nonparty 1’s lawsuit, and the first instance judgment was also sentenced first. However, the Defendant finalizeded the first instance judgment with Nonparty 1, and paid the value ordered by the said judgment to Nonparty 1. In such a case where the value of other creditors of the subsequent lawsuit was recovered, the benefit of protecting the rights of the prior lawsuit ought to be recognized, considering the case where the creditor of the prior lawsuit completed the recovery of the value of the prior lawsuit to protect the authority and trust of the judgment. Moreover, the Defendant’s recovery in collusion with Nonparty 1, and the assertion that there was no benefit of protecting the rights of the prior lawsuit is not permissible.

2) Facts recognized

A) The Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the cancellation of the first and second right pledge contract, the restoration of value, and the cancellation of a fraudulent act seeking the assignment of claims (hereinafter “prior lawsuit”). The Defendant actively disputed the Plaintiff et al.’s assertion through his legal representative.

Plaintiff: Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap12864 decided February 5, 2010

Cheongchi Business Co., Ltd.: Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap14570 on February 11, 2010

C. C. E.S. Global: Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap14587 on February 11, 2010

B) On May 28, 2010, Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the contract for the second pledge of rights against the Defendant and the payment of KRW 300 million in value (hereinafter “the subsequent lawsuit”). The Defendant did not appoint an attorney and did not appear in the lawsuit.

C) On November 19, 2010, each Plaintiff rendered a judgment in favor of the cancellation of the contract for establishing a right to pledge (the amount of KRW 300 million) and the equivalent value (the amount of KRW 150 million to KRW 300 million) and damages for delay in the previous lawsuit, and the Defendant appealed on December 9, 2010 to the previous lawsuit.

D) On January 21, 2011, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (Non-party 1) was rendered, and the judgment was served on the Defendant on February 8, 2011. The Defendant submitted a petition of appeal on February 23, 2011 when the period for filing an appeal expires, and the judgment became final and conclusive upon the dismissal of the petition of appeal on March 10, 201. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant failed to observe the period for filing an appeal due to his/her family traffic accident, but did not submit any supporting materials.

E) On March 24, 2011, upon Nonparty 1’s application based on the above judgment, a compulsory auction was commenced against the building owned by the Defendant. On March 25, 2011, Nonparty 1 sent a notice to the effect that Nonparty 1 knows the application for auction and demands voluntary reimbursement to the Defendant.

F) On March 30, 2011, the Defendant remitted KRW 300 million to the bank account of Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 1 prepared a receipt that all of the Defendant received KRW 300 million and delay damages ordered payment in the judgment of the subsequent lawsuit, and stated in such receipt that “I confirm that all of the problems arising from the receipt of the above KRW 300 million and all other issues arising from the relationship with the obligees are responsible to the receiver.”

G) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted to the effect that there was no benefit of protection of rights since the Defendant had been absent without any speech on the date for preparatory pleading of the first time that was progress at the trial on March 25, 201, and the preparatory document received on April 14, 201, which was prior to the date for preparatory pleading of April 22, 2011, paid the total amount of KRW 300 million for establishing the contract for establishing the second right pledge to Nonparty 1, as seen earlier.

H) In addition, in the process of the preceding and subsequent litigation, the defendant resided in the U.S., and the plaintiff et al., who is the creditor, were in possession of only the relationship that only the first and second rights pledges were known. However, the attorney of the non-party 1 submitted as reference material a copy of the original judgment of the first instance judgment in the previous litigation in the subsequent litigation, and the structure and contents of the complaint and brief are similar to those in the previous litigation (No. 18-1 and 3 of evidence No. 18-1), immediately after the judgment on the subsequent litigation became final and conclusive, the non-party 1 applied for a compulsory auction against the defendant's real estate, and the defendant paid 300 million won to the non-party 1, since one week has not yet passed from the date of commencement

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 15 to 20 and Eul evidence 25 to 32 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

A) Each obligee meeting the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation may seek restitution after cancelling the obligor’s act of disposal of his own right. However, in a case where a creditor claims revocation and restitution of the same fraudulent act and the judgment in favor of the obligee became final and conclusive, and the said judgment has been completed accordingly, the obligee’s claim for revocation and restitution of the property has no benefit in the protection of rights to the extent that it overlaps (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da65367, Mar. 24, 2005).

Examining the instant case in accordance with such legal principles, even though the subsequent lawsuit was filed later than the prior lawsuit and the judgment of the court of first instance was finalized during the appellate trial, and accordingly, the Defendant paid the total amount of the establishment of the second pledge right to Nonparty 1, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking cancellation of the second pledge right contract and payment of the value thereof does not exist.

B) In light of the above legal principle, in order for the obligee’s right of revocation to achieve the special purpose of preserving the obligor’s responsible property, the obligee’s right to counter-performance of a claim, one of the contents of the principle of creditor equality, and the exceptional system that allows a third party, who is not a party to a legal act, to revoke a legal act between others on the ground that the obligee is a creditor, it can be said to be aimed at minimizing the beneficiary’s infringement, such as preventing double payment or risk of enforcement

However, the obligee’s right of revocation is a system that cancels a fraudulent act between the debtor and the beneficiary and returns property deviating from the debtor’s general property to all creditors on behalf of the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser in order to preserve the debtor’s responsible property, which is the joint collateral of the claim. It is recognized that the obligor’s act of reducing the joint collateral of the claim is not permissible from an equitable and moral point of view (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da44348, Feb. 27, 2001; 2002Da42957, Nov. 8, 2002). In addition, Article 2 of the Civil Act provides the principle of good faith and prohibition of abuse of rights, and Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The party and the person involved in the lawsuit shall perform the lawsuit in good faith to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of the beneficiary and the obligee’s right of revocation in a lawsuit.” In full view of the existence of obligee’s right of revocation and the principle of trust under the Civil Procedure Act.

From this point of view, this case will be examined.

According to the facts established earlier, the following facts can be revealed. ① Even though the Defendant actively contests while filing an appeal in the preceding lawsuit even though having no particular difference between the preceding lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit, the first instance judgment became final and conclusive because it did not timely file an appeal. ② There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant used other methods than the Defendant’s cooperation in finding the Defendant’s property for compulsory execution. ③ Since multiple creditors in the preceding and subsequent lawsuit seek cancellation of the contract for establishing a right of pledge and seeking compensation for damages, and the first instance judgment citing this amount was handed down, it is difficult to view that the Defendant deposit the value of the cancelled creditors as deposit the entire amount as deposit, and thus, it is difficult to avoid double payment or execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da391, May 31, 2007). Moreover, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, who is the cancelled obligee, as well as Nonparty 1, as one of the parties to the first instance judgment, was able to have paid the entire amount of non-party 1’s defense in the first instance judgment.

Considering these circumstances, although the defendant completed the recovery of the value according to the final and conclusive judgment of the subsequent lawsuit, this is not only a case where the defendant submitted defense materials to avoid compensation for the value in the prior lawsuit with one creditor of the revocation of the subsequent lawsuit, but also a close consultation with the other creditor of the revocation of the prior lawsuit, thereby impairing equity among them, thereby impairing the authority of the judgment and impairing the trust of the court. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that there is no benefit in protecting the rights of the prior lawsuit on the ground of the recovery of value according to the judgment of the subsequent lawsuit cannot be accepted under the principle of good faith.

4) Sub-committee

After all, the plaintiff's argument is reasonable, and the defendant's main defense is returned to the absence of justifiable grounds.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) The assertion

On August 7, 2009, the Defendant did not lend money to TaesofC, and the first pledge contract for rights was not concluded. The Defendant or Nonparty 4 drafted a first pledge contract for rights by using TaesofC’s corporate sense at will. The first pledge contract for rights is a false contract with a view to excluding other creditors and securing preferential rights to payment for its investment. It should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act.

2) Determination

The statement of evidence Nos. 21 through 26 alone is insufficient to recognize that the contract to establish the first right is a false contract prepared in the same manner as the plaintiff claims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all of the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List: omitted

Judges Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 1010, Dec. 1, 201>

2) In light of the progress of the relevant case, the Plaintiff’s agent asserted that Nonparty 1 received a certified copy of the judgment from the Defendant and submitted it as reference material, and the Defendant did not go against it.