[2] In a case where Gap filed a lawsuit to revoke Eul's fraudulent act and received a final and conclusive judgment on partial revocation for Eul's transfer of Eul's claim to Eul as creditor Eul as Eul's creditor, and Gap received a distribution by claiming a distribution in accordance with the mediation protocol established in the lawsuit to acquire the above claim against Byung before the judgment on revocation of fraudulent act was rendered, the case holding that Gap cannot make a demurrer against objection by asserting the validity of revocation of the above fraudulent act

[2] In a case where Gap filed a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit against Eul's transfer of Eul's claim against Eul as creditor Eul as creditor against Eul, and Gap received a distribution by claiming a distribution in accordance with the conciliation protocol established in the above lawsuit against Byung prior to the judgment revoking the fraudulent act, the case holding that Gap's claim of revocation of the fraudulent act cannot be effective, and that Eul's exercise of creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's claim against Eul, not the debtor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor

The obligee’s right of revocation is a right to revoke the obligor’s act of disposal of the debtor’s property and to recover it to its original state, and is not a right to exclusively satisfy the obligee who exercises the obligee’s right of revocation to return the obligor’s property deviating from the fraudulent act to the obligor for the entire obligee. In addition, the scope of revocation of the fraudulent act cannot seek revocation beyond the obligee’s claim amount, barring special circumstances, such as where it is apparent that another obligee would demand a distribution or where the subject matter is indivisible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da10864, Sept. 9, 197). Therefore, barring such special circumstances, the obligee may exercise the obligee’s right of revocation to recover the obligor’s property within the scope of his/her claim amount, and may assert the effect following such revocation, and may not assert the effect of revocation of the fraudulent act in order to satisfy the claim against a third party,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for a compulsory auction on each of the real estate of this case based on the original copy of the judgment with executory power of the judgment against the typium Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Isium"). Meanwhile, prior to the above application for a compulsory auction, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for a claim for the transfer of the claim against the typium, which the defendant acquired by transfer of the claim against the typium Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Sspium"), and concluded voluntary adjustment in the process, on the ground that the plaintiff's assignment of the claim against the defendant against the defendant against the typium constitutes a fraudulent act. Since the plaintiff was judged in favor of the court in favor of the defendant, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for a compulsory auction against the plaintiff and the defendant, who is the applicant for the auction court, based on the above conciliation protocol's revocation of the claim against the plaintiff's claim for a compulsory auction against the defendant's claim for distribution within the scope of the amount finalized.

In other words, the court below held that, on the ground that the plaintiff is holding the status as the creditor of the Scionion and the status as the creditor of the Scionion, if it is possible to assert the validity of revocation of the assignment of claims in accordance with the exercise of the right of revocation between the defendant and the debtor as the creditor of the Scionion, and the distribution procedure with the third debtor as the execution debtor, the third debtor, the other creditors of Scionion cannot enjoy the effect of revocation of fraudulent act unless the third creditor of Scionion is not the creditor of Scionion, nor can it be unfair that the plaintiff satisfy his claim against Scionion rather than Scionion, and therefore, in the auction case of each of the real estate of this case, the plaintiff can not be viewed as the creditor of the above lawsuit of revocation as the creditor of Scionion, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as the creditor of the above lawsuit of revocation with the status as the creditor of Scionion, which is the debtor of this case, as the creditor of the above claim of distribution.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, we affirm the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's objection based on the validity of revocation of fraudulent act in the distribution procedure concerning the third party's responsible property, not the debtor of the lawsuit seeking revocation of speculative act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to revocation of fraudulent act or the validity

In addition, the ground of appeal that there is an error in violation of the provisions of the Civil Act concerning the notification of assignment of claims to the court below is with regard to the judgment of the court below as to the family and additional judgment, and it cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)