2. In relation to the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, the sales contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 on November 15, 1977 between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 as to one complex (dong and lake omitted) on the ground mentor and sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap 1 and 16-pap sap sap sap sap 19

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, the remainder by the defendant, and the part arising from the appeal between the plaintiff and the other defendants shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. For the plaintiff, defendant 2 and 3, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 on the same building as the sales contract under Paragraph 2 of the order concerning the building mentioned in Paragraph 2 of this Article shall be revoked respectively.

3. As to the same building, Defendant 2 fulfilled each procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on Nov. 21, 1977, as the receipt of the registration for the establishment of the Seoul District Court, Law No. 112352 on Nov. 21, 197, and Defendant 3 on May 1, 1978.

3. Defendant 1 shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the same building to the Plaintiff on January 11, 1977.

4. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is as follows: on January 11, 1977, the plaintiff sold a non-registered building, the only property of which is non-registered, to the defendant 1,650,00 won at the face value of the issuance of the defendant 1,650,00 won, and on December 10 of the same year as the date of the issuance of the bill; on January 11, of the same year, the date of the issuance of the bill; the defendant's construction as a security of the bond, and the non-registered building that the defendant had acquired at the time, as 1,650,00 won, to the plaintiff 1,650 won at the repurchase agreement; on November 17, 197, the defendant 1 sold the above non-registered building to the defendant 2, who is its minor, for the purpose of evading compulsory execution; on the other hand, the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 1, as the plaintiff 2, who purchased the above non-registered building under the name of the defendant 1 and the plaintiff 1, stated that it as 3.

3. First of all, with respect to the plaintiff's above claim against the defendant 2 and 3, as to the part on April 28, 1978 for which the cancellation of the sales contract was sought between the two parties, a juristic act subject to revocation by a health class and a false obligee's right of revocation is merely a fraudulent act between the debtor and the beneficiary, and cannot seek cancellation of the juristic act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser (the sale between the above two defendants in this case). Thus, the plaintiff's claim on this part is groundless by its assertion itself

4. Following the claim against the defendant 3: The defendant's above sale and purchase among the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 did not constitute a fraudulent act; even if it is a fraudulent act, the defendant purchased the above sale and purchase between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 in good faith is acknowledged as a fraudulent act as follows; however, according to the testimony of the non-party 1, Eul No. 1 through 4 (sales Contract), Eul No. 2, and Eul No. 3 (Receipt), and the witness's testimony as to the above 0. The defendant's remaining purchase and sale of the above 0.0 billion won are 0 billion won for the above 10.0 billion won for the purpose of purchasing a house on March 14, 1978, the defendant's remaining 00 won for the first time after deducting the above 0.0 billion won for the sale and purchase of the above 0.0 billion won for the above 100 billion won for the first time, 000 won for the remainder of the sale and purchase of the above 10.0.5 billion won for the above reasons

5. The following facts are as follows: (a) Nos. 2 (No. 3) without dispute over the remainder of the claim against the defendant 2; (b) No. 4 (No. 7) with a copy of the above provisional disposition; (c) with a copy of the above provisional disposition No. 7 (No. 11); (d) with a copy of the above provisional disposition No. 11; and (e., evidence No. 12 and No. 13 (U. 5) with a view to the presumption of the authenticity of the entire document; and (e) with a view to the cancellation of the registration of transfer of the above provisional disposition No. 6 (No. 7) with a view to the sale of the above provisional disposition No. 1, the plaintiff would be exempt from the above provisional disposition No. 1 with a view to the sale of the above non-party 1's property at the time of the above provisional disposition No. 1, the plaintiff would sell the above non-party 2's claim for the sale of the foregoing non-party 1's property.

Furthermore, as seen above, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the above preservation registration against Defendant 2 is recognized in the preceding paragraph, and the building was already transferred to Defendant 3, who is the subsequent purchaser, and Defendant 3 cannot recover the building from this point on the ground that it was bona fide. In such a case, considering that the claim for cancellation by the obligee’s right of revocation is a special system that aims to recover the benefit gained by fraudulent act from the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser and return it to the debtor’s general property, it is impossible to restore it to the original property. Thus, even if it can be claimed for damages due to impossibility of restitution, it should be interpreted that the claim for cancellation of registration for its own purpose cannot be made even if it is returned to the original state (in this respect, it shall be interpreted differently from the claim for cancellation of registration on the ground that the cause is null and void). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of this part should return to the effect that there is no reason.

6. Finally, as seen above, as to the claim for the registration of transfer against Defendant 1, the sales contract for the building was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 on January 11, 1977 for the purpose of securing the above claim, and as long as the payment period of the claim has not expired until the maturity date, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership based on the sale on January 11, 197 for the purpose of securing the above claim against the Plaintiff. However, as long as the building was already transferred to Defendant 3, a bona fide purchaser, and cannot be restored to its original state, as seen in the above paragraph 4, the obligation for the registration of transfer of ownership against the Plaintiff was insufficient, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim on this point is groundless.

7. Therefore, among the plaintiff's objection claim against the defendants, only the part demanding the cancellation of the contract between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 on November 15, 197, and all of the remainder are groundless. Thus, since the original judgment dismissing all claims against the plaintiff's defendants in whole, it is unfair that the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed only for the above part that the members accepted, and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the plaintiff's claim against the above part is accepted, and the remaining appeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Sang-won (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-young