부당이득금
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. All the plaintiffs' claims added by this court are dismissed.
3...
1. The reasons why the plaintiffs' claims against F and this part of the insolvency court against F are stated in this part are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertionF paid KRW 73,00,000 on August 5, 2014, and KRW 19,600,000 on August 6, 2014, with the intent to evade the Defendant’s obligation to compensate for damages to the victims of fraudulent conduct, including the Plaintiffs, in excess of its obligation, as the repayment of the Defendant’s obligation. Each of the above repayment constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors, including the Plaintiffs, and thus, should be revoked, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs each of the repayment of KRW 46,30,00 and the delay damages therefrom.
B. As a matter of course, the obligee’s right to seek reimbursement of a debt does not interfere with the obligee’s exercise of its right on the ground that there exists another obligee, and the obligor also did not refuse the performance of the obligation on the ground that there is another obligee as the obligee bears the obligation to perform the obligation according to the principal place of the debt. As such, even in cases where the obligor’s repayment to a specific obligee in excess of the obligation leads to a decrease in the joint security of other obligees, such repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act, unless the obligor, in collusion with some creditors, intended to harm other creditors, in principle, unless he/she performed the obligation.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1205 Decided June 24, 2003). With respect to the instant case, the health care unit, F’s KRW 73,00,000 to the Defendant on August 5, 2014, and KRW 19,600,000 to the Defendant’s account of co-defendant D of the first instance court, the Defendant’s husband on August 6, 2014, are not in dispute between the parties. According to the evidence No. 8-1 through No. 5, F cannot further commit fraud against the Plaintiffs and other victims.