[구상금및사해행위][공2005.5.1.(225),640]
[1] In a case where a creditor with respect to the same fraudulent act has been rendered a favorable judgment and the judgment has become final and conclusive, and its implementation has been completed accordingly, whether the benefit in the protection of rights is lost to the extent that the other creditor’s revocation and the claim for restitution overlap (affirmative)
[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that even if the market price of real estate in the subsequent lawsuit was increased compared to the market price recognized in the above final and conclusive judgment as a result of a re-appraisal of the market price in the subsequent lawsuit in the case where a revocation lawsuit against the same fraudulent act was overlapped, the amount increased shall not be deemed as a portion that does not overlap with the part recognized in the above final and conclusive judgment, and thus, the compensation for the equivalent value cannot be again ordered
[1] Each obligee who satisfies the requirements for obligee's right of revocation is entitled to revoke the obligor's act of disposal of his own right and seek restitution. However, in case where one obligee claims revocation and restitution of the same fraudulent act, and the judgment became final and conclusive by winning a favorable judgment, and thereby the said judgment is completed, the obligee's claim for revocation and restitution of the original status shall have no benefit in the protection of rights to the extent that it overlaps.
[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that even if the market price of real estate in the subsequent lawsuit was increased more than the market price recognized in the above final judgment as a result of a re-appraisal of the market price in the previous lawsuit in the case where a revocation lawsuit against the same fraudulent act was overlapped, the amount increased shall not be deemed as a part that is not overlapping with the part recognized in the above final judgment, and thus, it shall not be ordered again to compensate for the equivalent value.
[1] Article 406 (1) of the Civil Code, Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 406 (1) of the Civil Code, Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Da6180 delivered on July 28, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19558 delivered on July 11, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1717)
Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Park Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Defendant (Law Firm Seo-gu, Attorneys Lee Young-gu, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na31502 delivered on October 26, 2004
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
Each obligee who satisfies the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation is entitled to seek restitution after cancelling the obligor’s property disposal act as its own right. However, in case where a creditor claims revocation and restitution of the same fraudulent act and the judgment became final and conclusive by winning a favorable judgment, and thereby completing restitution of the property or value, the obligee’s claim for revocation and restitution of the original status will no longer benefit in the protection of rights to the extent that it overlaps (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Da6180, Jul. 28, 200; 2003Da19558, Jul. 11, 2003).
In full view of the admitted evidence, the court below ruled that the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, which held claims for reimbursement of KRW 480,44,976 against the defendant 3 of the first instance trial, filed a lawsuit for cancellation of the creditor's right to the real estate stated in the separate list of Seoul District Court (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), with the Seoul District Court 2001 71359, and that the sales contract of this case between the defendant 3 of the first instance trial and the defendant was fraudulent act on June 11, 2001, and that the remaining amount was 879,624,000,000 won after the above fraudulent act was 70,000 won, and that the remaining amount of the real estate of this case was 300,700,000 won after the above fraudulent act was 705,000 won and thus, 300,000,000 won (the above final judgment of the Seoul Credit Guarantee Fund's 2037,7037,0037,03030.
Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in the protection of rights in a lawsuit seeking revocation of
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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)