1. As to the ground of appeal that the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case is unlawful

Article 70 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “The commencement of rehabilitation procedures shall not affect the right of the debtor to redeem any property that does not belong to the debtor from the debtor,” and that the right to repurchase may be exercised without resorting to the rehabilitation procedure, unlike any rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right.”

The right to revoke a fraudulent act is revoked by the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property and is to return the debtor's responsible property that is deviating from the fraudulent act to the debtor from the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser. In cases where rehabilitation procedures commence for the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser, the debtor's creditor's claim for the return of the property that is the object of the fraudulent act from the debtor to the debtor is not affected by the commencement of rehabilitation procedures because the debtor's claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act and the subsequent return of the property itself constitutes the exercise of the right to repurchase. Therefore, even if rehabilitation procedures commence for the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser, the debtor's creditor may file a lawsuit against the administrator

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant received a decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures on March 24, 2009 that the Defendant deemed the Defendant as a custodian, along with the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and thereafter, the Plaintiff, a creditor of the Nonparty, asserted that the sales contract of the instant real estate concluded between the Nonparty and the Defendant was a fraudulent act, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate against the Defendant, a beneficiary, by asserting that the sales contract of the instant real estate was concluded as of February 4, 2009, against the Nonparty and the Defendant, a trustee of the rehabilitation procedure against the Defendant, and

In light of the aforementioned facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act is not affected by the commencement of rehabilitation procedures as it constitutes the exercise of the right of repurchase. Therefore, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that rehabilitation procedures commenced against the Defendant, who is the beneficiary of fraudulent act.

Although the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act in this case is unlawful, the court below's rejection of the defendant's above assertion is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures. The Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37141 Decided September 9, 201 cited in the ground of appeal by the defendant differs from the case of this case where rehabilitation procedures commenced against the beneficiary of fraudulent act, and it is not appropriate to invoke the case

2. As to the grounds of appeal that the custodian is a bona fide subsequent purchaser

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant, who is in the position of a manager in the rehabilitation procedure against the Defendant, constitutes a subsequent purchaser in good faith, on the grounds that, even if the right to manage and dispose of the debtor’s property is exclusively vested in the administrator upon the decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures, the debtor’s property itself is

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to subsequent purchaser in

3. Conclusion

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 Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)