사해행위취소
1. The part against Defendant C among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3...
1. Whether the part against Defendant C among the instant lawsuit is lawful
A. The Plaintiff, a creditor of the content of the Plaintiff’s claim, sought confirmation of ownership that the ownership of the instant movable against the Defendant C, who had the owner’s appearance, was the ownership of the instant movable to the Defendant B by reporting the business of the store where each of the instant movable property was located due to a movable transfer contract concluded between D and the Defendant B (hereinafter “each of the instant movable”).
B. A lawsuit for confirmation does not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the parties to the lawsuit and the third party or between third parties. However, the confirmation of such legal relationship is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship in order to eliminate the potential risks existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, using the legal relationship as the object of confirmation by the original defendant's confirmation judgment. In addition, there is a benefit of confirmation that it becomes the most effective and appropriate means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da23388, Nov. 8, 1994). As long as the plaintiff filed a creditor revocation lawsuit as the lawsuit in this case and seeks the cancellation and delivery of the movable property transfer contract in this case between D and the defendant under the premise that D is the owner, seeking the confirmation of ownership against the defendant C cannot be deemed the most effective means to eliminate the existing anxiety or risks in the legal status, and therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case against the defendant C is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
2. Determination as to the claim for revocation of fraudulent act against Defendant B
A. The Plaintiff’s claim against D was confirmed on August 12, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order based on the loan against D on August 12, 2016 (the Gwangju District Court Decision 2016 tea466, 2016, which was served on August 18, 2016 and became final and conclusive on September 2, 2016.
3.