In a case where, with respect to a debtor's claim against the third party debtor, after a provisional attachment by the creditor A was made, the creditor's claim was transferred to Gap, and thereafter, the creditor's provisional attachment is again subject to the creditor's creditor B's deposit on the grounds of such circumstances, and the third party debtor's deposit was made and the reason for deposit was reported, and the creditor Eul was excluded from the dividends, the creditor Eul sought a correction of the distribution schedule on the ground that the above assignment of claim constitutes a fraudulent act, and at the same time, the creditor sought a correction of the distribution schedule under the premise that the above claim is still attributed to the debtor, and at the same time against the creditor, the creditor sought a correction of the distribution schedule under the premise that the above claim is revoked by recognizing the above assignment of claim as a fraudulent act, the effect of revocation of fraudulent act does not extend

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation (Law Firm two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Dong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na79911 decided June 12, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where a creditor files a lawsuit for the revocation of a fraudulent act with the revocation of a fraudulent act by the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, the effect of the revocation is limited to the relationship between the creditor, beneficiary, or subsequent purchaser, and thus, even if the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser bears the obligation to restore the original state due to the revocation of the fraudulent act or to compensate for the equivalent value equivalent thereto, it is merely the legal effect arising from the relationship between the creditor and the subsequent purchaser, and the legal relationship arising from the revocation is not formed between the debtor and the subsequent purchaser, not the effect of the revocation is retroactively restored to the debtor's responsible property (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da23110, Aug. 24, 2006, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records in light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court below determined that the plaintiff could not seek the cancellation of the amount of distribution against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff, who was not paid dividends against the new bank, was not paid dividends on the ground that the claim of this case was provisionally seized after the notification of the transfer of claim by content-certified mail, which is a document with fixed date, in an open distribution procedure concerning the amount of claim of this case deposited on the ground of several provisional seizures, such as provisional seizure of the plaintiff's claim of this case, and concurrent collection order, etc., after the notification of the transfer of claim by the contents-certified mail, which is a document with fixed date, and even if the judgment of acceptance became final and conclusive, the revocation becomes effective only between the plaintiff and new

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)