사해행위취소등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part of the judgment, thereby admitting this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Defendants asserted that as D, who purchased the instant apartment from the debtor debtor Eul, was subject to a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act from the Gyeongnam Credit Guarantee Foundation, and was sentenced to revocation of the said apartment sales contract and revocation of the registration of ownership transfer, the Defendants asserted that D, who paid KRW 39,50,000 to the Gyeongnam Credit Guarantee Foundation and repaid KRW 4,032,00 to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., which is another creditor of C, and paid KRW 35,00,000 to the creditors’ joint collateral at the time of the fraudulent act, the Plaintiff cannot claim revocation of the fraudulent act and compensation for the value of the said apartment.
B. Even if the Defendants asserted, D purchased the apartment of this case, as argued by the Defendants, provided C’s creditors with the repayment of C’s debt as compensation for the equivalent value arising from the revocation of the fraudulent act.
Even if the plaintiff, another creditor of C, cannot seek revocation of fraudulent act and compensation for value against the defendants who purchased the above apartment from D.
In addition, restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act should, in principle, be based on the return of the subject matter itself. However, if it is impossible or considerably difficult, it should be based on exceptional compensation, and in calculating the equivalent amount, the equivalent amount should be objectively assessed based on the time of closing argument at the fact-finding court regardless of the price actually received by the beneficiary from the subsequent purchaser (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35465, Sept. 28, 2006); 5.