The plaintiff and the other party of a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit

A. In the obligee's right of revocation, the revocation of the obligor's fraudulent act is not absolute revocation, but relatively revoked in relation to the relationship against the beneficiary in bad faith or the subsequent purchaser in bad faith. Therefore, the above right of revocation is only against the beneficiary in bad faith or against the subsequent purchaser in bad faith, and it cannot be exercised against the obligor. Thus, a claim for revocation against the obligor

B. The obligee's right of revocation by the obligor's fraudulent act refers to the obligee's claim for revocation and restitution to the court when the obligor has done a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. Therefore, even if the obligor does not know that it would be detrimental to the obligee's right of revocation at the time of the juristic act, the obligee has already existed

Article 306 of the Civil Act

Republic of Korea (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 4292No786 delivered on November 23, 1960

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are as stated in the grounds of appeal subsequently filed.

1. The revocation of the fraudulent act by the creditor in the right to revoke ex officio is not absolute revocation, but rather revoked relatively in relation to the relation against the beneficiary in bad faith or the subsequent purchaser in bad faith. Therefore, this right to claim revocation is only against the beneficiary in bad faith or the subsequent purchaser in bad faith, and it is not possible to exercise the right against the debtor. Accordingly, the plaintiff may not claim revocation against the debtor. According to this case, although the plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the fraudulent act against the defendant 2, who is the first beneficiary in bad faith, the debtor, the debtor, the defendant 1, as the above, but the lawsuit against the defendant 1, the court of the original judgment and the first instance should dismiss it because it is improper, but the court of the first instance has maintained the judgment of the first instance that did not accept the plaintiff's claim, and therefore, it is reasonable to reverse the original judgment in particular.

2. The right to revoke the plaintiff's appeal by fraudulent act of the debtor refers to the creditor's claim for revocation and restitution when the debtor knowingly committed an act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor. Therefore, it is natural that the creditor's claim may already exist at the time of the debtor's act at the time of the juristic act, in view of the creditor's right to revoke. Thus, it can be acknowledged that the principal contract between the defendants was concluded on September 5, 4290 with the evidence No. 7 No. 2 and No. 3-10 with the testimony of the witness witness No. 3-1 and No. 10 with the view that the above contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded on September 14, 4291, since the government's grain storage contract between the non-party international corporation and the financial commissioner and the special account for grain management had been concluded on March 14, 14, 4291 and the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the plaintiff's purchase and sale cannot be acknowledged as the plaintiff's claim.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Professor Jin-man (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court of Korea