구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.
Co-defendant C of the first instance trial and the defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, except for the following parts, and thus, citing the reasoning of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article
(s) Except for the part of the claim against co-defendants in the first instance trial, the part used on the second instance trial “Defendant C” as “Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial”) 2. Re-use on the second instance trial (No more than 6 et al. of the first instance judgment)
C. The right to revoke a fraudulent act by means of revocation and restitution is aimed at preserving the joint collateral of the claim, and the scope of revocation is limited to the extent necessary and sufficient to preserve the joint collateral.
Therefore, in a case where the debtor is in excess of his/her obligation only due to the fraudulent act, it is sufficient for the creditor to cancel only the part which is insufficient to secure the joint collateral of the claim as long as the fraudulent act is divided, within the limit of his/her claim amount, and the whole act cannot be revoked.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36209 Decided August 19, 2010). Meanwhile, in a case where a beneficiary newly acquired a mortgage on an immovable on which a mortgage is established by a fraudulent act, and the mortgage on the part of the beneficiary was cancelled due to the execution of the preceding mortgage, and the dividend to be returned to the beneficiary was not paid due to a provisional disposition, etc., the right to claim the dividend acquired by the beneficiary after cancelling the act of causing the acquisition of the mortgage, should be restored to the original state by transferring the right to claim the dividend acquired by the beneficiary to the debtor, and ultimately, the form of ordering the debtor to notify the transfer of
(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da34945 Decided September 13, 2013). At the time of entering into the instant mortgage agreement, the instant real estate was located in the market value of KRW 950 million with positive property of Codefendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance court at the time of entering into the instant mortgage agreement, and the instant real estate was located in the small property amounting to KRW 823,174,689, and is only based on the instant mortgage agreement.