사해행위취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Plaintiff’s Korean Standards, Inc., and C.
1. The basic facts;
2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion
A. The grounds for this part of the plaintiff's assertion are stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).
The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant bank and the defendant company is legitimate ex officio.
The obligee’s right of revocation is a right to revoke the obligor’s disposal of his/her property by a fraudulent act and to seek restitution to its original state, and is not a right to exclusively satisfy the obligee who exercises the obligee’s right of revocation to return the obligor’s property deviating from the fraudulent act to the obligor for all creditors. Thus, in cases where the obligee filed a lawsuit against the beneficiary for revocation or termination of the fraudulent act on the ground of the obligor’s fraudulent act on the ground of the obligor’s real property, and the obligee’s right of revocation is reinstated or terminated during the lawsuit, and the obligee’s right of revocation is returned to the obligor by means of the revocation of the fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances, the obligee’s right of revocation is no longer secured interest
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da85157 Decided March 27, 2008). The lawsuit against the Defendant Bank and the Defendant Company is unlawful, on the ground that the right to collateral security established on the real estate stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 was cancelled on January 22, 2014 on the ground of termination on January 21, 2014. The cancellation of the Defendant Company’s right to collateral security on the ground that the right to collateral security was cancelled on February 4, 2014 on the ground that the termination on February 7, 2014 is apparent in the record. As such, the Plaintiff did not have a benefit in the protection of the right to claim revocation of fraudulent act and restitution on the ground that the respective right to collateral security agreement of the Defendant Bank and the
C. The existence of the preserved claim 1 as to the claim against the defendant B is stated in this part.