손해배상(기) 등
1. The defendant D's appeal shall be dismissed;
2. Defendant E’s appeal is dismissed.
3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff jointly claimed damages against Co-Defendant C and Defendant D in the first instance court, while claiming for the revocation of the gift contract concluded between Defendant E and Defendant D with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet and the execution of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of Defendant E, on the ground that the above damage claim was the right to be preserved, and filed a claim against Defendant E for the revocation of the fraudulent act and restoration to its original state. The court of first instance partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for damages, and accepted both the fraudulent act revocation and restoration claim.
In relation to the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the revocation of the debtor's fraudulent act is not absolute revocation, but relative to the beneficiary in bad faith or the subsequent purchaser in bad faith. Thus, the creditor's revocation lawsuit seeking the recovery of the responsible property, along with the revocation of the fraudulent act, has the standing for defendant only for the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser, and there is no standing for defendant against
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant D filed an appeal of this case, and the Defendant D did not appeal the part concerning the claim for damages which is disadvantageous to himself/herself in the judgment of the court of first instance, but did not appeal the part concerning the claim for damages which is disadvantageous to himself/herself in the judgment of the court of first instance. It is obvious that the Defendant D filed an appeal only against the part concerning the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution of the original status among the judgment of the court of first instance
(See the statement in the complaint). Accordingly, Defendant D’s appeal is unlawful as it is against a judgment against another person, who is not the principal.
2. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments with respect to the assertion of addition or supplement by Defendant E, and thus, the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. As such, this is included in the summary of Article 420 of the CPA.
3. Added.