[소유권이전등기말소등][집36(1)민,58;공1988.4.15.(822),584]
In order to preserve the right of revocation for the claim for transfer registration of ownership in a specific material and the other party to the lawsuit for revocation
The creditor's right of revocation is to prevent the decrease in the debtor's responsible property, which is the joint security of the creditor, so it is impossible to exercise the creditor's right of revocation in order to preserve the right of revocation for transfer of ownership to a specific object, and in a lawsuit for revocation of creditor's right of revocation, the
Article 406 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 73Da1954 Delivered on July 26, 1974
Plaintiff
Defendant 1
Defendant 2 and 3 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 86Na963 delivered on June 2, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The obligee's right of revocation is to prevent the decrease in the obligor's responsible property, which is the joint collateral of the obligee, so it is not possible to exercise the obligee's right of revocation in order to preserve the obligee's right of revocation, and in a lawsuit for revocation, the other party should be the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, not the obligor.
According to the records, the plaintiff's lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act of this case is clear that the plaintiff's heir 2's act of selling and selling this case to defendant 1 constitutes a fraudulent act on the ground that the plaintiff's monetary claim against the deceased non-party 2 is against the defendant 1, who is the beneficiary (as of the 16th day of the trial of the first instance, the plaintiff clearly stated this point), and the judgment of the court below is examined. The plaintiff's lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act of this case is not to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of specific items, but to preserve the monetary claim as stated in its reasoning, and it is also obvious that the court below judged that the defendant 1, the beneficiary of the fraudulent act, was the other party to the lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act of this case, such as the theory of lawsuit, did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's standing or the right to preserve, or in the decision contrary to the precedents of the party
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the plaintiff had a loan claim against the deceased non-party 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and on the other hand, the deceased non-party 1 who became his heir due to the death of the deceased non-party 2 as his sole property and left with the above deceased non-party 2 as his intention to harm the above creditors' death, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion of the claim as to the assertion of the claim in good faith as alleged in the defendant 1. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and the relation of the selection of evidence is just, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.
All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, all appeals are 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 Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)