beta
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2015.12.08 2014나21596

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant A shall be revoked, and the part of the plaintiff's claim against the above defendant shall be claimed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the facts is as stated in the pertinent part, except that the court shall conclude “after signing” under the 10th sentence of the 3rd written judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “this case’s 1. contract”) as “after signing the 1. contract,” and therefore, it shall accept it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. As to the claim against the defendant A

A. In a case where a creditor files a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act against a subsequent purchaser, the fraudulent act subject to revocation is a legal act between the debtor and the beneficiary, and the legal act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923, Aug. 30, 2004). Meanwhile, the supplementary registration by transfer of the right is to specify the succession of the right under the existing creation of the right in the register, which is dependent on the existing principal registration, and is integrated with the principal registration, and thus, is to only seek cancellation of the establishment registration prior to the existing principal registration, if the establishment of the right becomes null and void, and even if the supplementary registration is not separately sought for cancellation, it is not a benefit to seek cancellation of the supplementary registration by transfer of the right to collateral security, which is the subsequent registration, without seeking cancellation of the original registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923, Jul. 29, 2009).

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit against Defendant A is unlawful.

B. As to the claim for cancellation of the registration of creation No. 1.