1. The part of a claim for the cancellation of a sales contract among the primary claims for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and corresponding to the revoked part;

The reasons for this judgment of this court shall be the same as the judgment of the first instance.

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act): Provided, That the following shall be dried or added:

1. The judgment of the court of first instance must be cancelled, which is the 7th day above the 6th day of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the phrase “it shall be cancelled, respectively, on June 21, 2012 between Defendant D and Defendant C, which was concluded on the basis of the agreement of the establishment and termination, and the agreement of the purchase and sale should be cancelled.”

2.The following shall be added from six (6) rulings of the first instance to the fifth (5) below:

[Supplementary Contents] First, we examine the claim between Defendant D and Defendant C for the cancellation of the sales contract on June 21, 2012.

Where a creditor files a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against a subsequent purchaser, along with the revocation of a fraudulent act, against which the subsequent purchaser seeks revocation of a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act subject to revocation is limited to a juristic act committed between the debtor and the beneficiary, and any juristic act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923, Aug. 30, 2004). In the instant case, the health care unit of the Plaintiffs’ claim for revocation of the fraudulent act against the Defendant C, the subsequent purchaser, is the termination agreement between G and Defendant D as seen earlier.

Therefore, the claim between Defendant D and Defendant C on June 21, 2012, seeking the revocation of the sales contract between Defendant D and Defendant C is unlawful and thus dismissed.

3.The following shall be added on the 5th anniversary of the decision of the first instance:

[Supplementary Contents] The Plaintiffs asserts that the title trust agreement is revoked in relation to the instant 2 real estate and that the cancellation registration procedure is to be implemented on that ground.

However, this is to seek revocation of fraudulent act by means of attack and defense without seeking revocation of a title trust agreement in the purport of the claim.

An obligee is only entitled to file a lawsuit for the revocation of a fraudulent act with a court.