사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the conjunctive assertion added by the plaintiff to this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Plaintiff transferred real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff in order to repay the Plaintiff’s loan obligation, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff exercise the obligee’s right of revocation by setting the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against D as the preserved bond.
It is not allowed to exercise the right of revocation in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration for a specific object. Therefore, the first assignee of real estate is unable to exercise the right of revocation in respect of dual transfer between the transferor and the third party for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration (Supreme Court Decision 98Da56690 delivered on April 27, 199). The Plaintiff’s above assertion that the right to claim ownership transfer registration is a preserved bond is without merit, even if necessary.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.