The judgment below

Of the attached Table 7, the part concerning the 1/4 portion of the real estate in the attached Table shall be reversed, and that part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In the event that the obligee filed a lawsuit against the beneficiary seeking revocation of and reinstatement to the obligor’s fraudulent act on the ground of the obligor’s fraudulent act, and during the course of the lawsuit, the said fraudulent act is rescinded or terminated, and the obligee’s return to the obligor by means of the revocation of the fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, the obligee’s revocation lawsuit is no longer effective and no longer has the benefit in the protection of the right to the obligee’s right by the lawsuit.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da952, May 21, 2015). Moreover, even if a party does not assert the interest of the protection of rights as an ex officio investigation, the court shall investigate and determine ex officio the litigation requirements, and where the litigation requirements are defective or defective after the closing of arguments at the fact-finding court, the court shall also consider them in the final appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da231198 Decided September 28, 2018). B.

According to the records, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against B, who is a beneficiary, seeking revocation of and restitution to the original state with respect to the shares of 1/4 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration was completed on August 22, 2018, which is the debtor, the debtor, on August 22, 2018, after the closing of argument in the lower court.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no legal interest in seeking restitution of the above 1/4 shares that were already returned to C against B, and thus, the part corresponding to the above shares in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

2. Review of the record as to the second ground for appeal by the Supreme Court on January 10, 2019, which was pending in the final appeal of this case against C, is the Daegu District Court.