사해행위취소
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “This case shall be cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the date on which the contract for the preceding case was concluded,” and “this case shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following to the fourth following the 13th page,” and thus, this case shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the same Act.
On the other hand, in the case of cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration in the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap41132, the Plaintiff’s decision to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendant Company based on the contract for the preceding case (hereinafter “the judgment without pleading of this case”).
) Upon confirmation, notwithstanding C and U’s transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant Company based on the above sales contract, each of the instant real estate constitutes D’s responsible property, and the instant donation agreement is concluded to evade the Plaintiff’s execution on each of the instant real estate, which is D’s responsible property, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act. In other words, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is only based on the conclusion of the judgment as to the existence of legal relationship alleged in the subject matter of lawsuit, namely, the existence of legal relationship, and it does not affect the existence of legal relationship as the premise stated in the reasoning of the judgment. Thus, even if the judgment accepting the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the cause is null and void, res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment does not extend to the judgment on the reversion of real estate rights among the reasons of the judgment, such as the existence of ownership itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da53939, Oct. 30, 2014).