사해행위취소
1. All of the lawsuits against the plaintiff and the defendant by an independent party intervenor are dismissed;
2. The extension by this court.
1. Determination on the legitimacy of an independent party intervenor's lawsuit
A. A lawsuit for confirmation relating to a claim for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when the judgment of confirmation is the most effective means to remove the Plaintiff’s right or legal status in danger of present apprehension.
A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to the legal relationship between the original defendant and a third party, but can be subject to the legal relationship between the original defendant and a third party. However, in order to eliminate the risks or apprehensions that may arise in the plaintiff's rights or legal status in relation to the legal relationship, it is necessary to immediately determine the legal relationship by the confirmation judgment between the original defendant and the legal relationship, and there is a benefit of confirmation that it becomes the most effective and appropriate means.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da23388 Decided November 8, 1994, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255 Decided March 15, 2017, etc.). At the time of entering into a sales contract on February 6, 2012 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Intervenor seeks confirmation of the fact that 1/2 of the instant real estate shares are the Intervenor’s ownership at the time of entering into the said sales contract with the Defendant on February 6, 2012 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Accordingly, the Intervenor’s interest in confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights is examined.
Even if 1/2 shares out of the instant real estate are assumed to be owned by the Intervenor as the Intervenor’s assertion, in removing the Intervenor’s right due to the instant claim or the imminent danger in legal status, the Intervenor asserts against the Defendant that the act of transfer of 1/2 shares out of the instant real estate against the Defendant is null and void as an act of an unentitled person’s disposal, and that the ownership transfer registration made in the name of the Defendant is null and void, and filed for registration of cancellation against the Plaintiff.