beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 3, 2003, the Plaintiff lent KRW 22,4.5 million to Nonparty C. On April 27, 2006, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed with the amount of claim KRW 300 million on April 27, 2006, and then filed a lawsuit seeking KRW 300 million with the Gwangju District Court 201Gahap1641 as well as damages for delay based on the said notarial deed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 22, 2017.
B. Meanwhile, C had a claim in the separate sheet against Nonparty D (hereinafter “instant claim”), but on July 17, 2013, transferred the instant claim to the Defendant, one of his children, and the Defendant transferred the instant claim to C again on April 9, 2018, which was following the filing of the instant lawsuit, and notified D of the transfer of the claim.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 12 evidence, Eul evidence 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff, as to whether the lawsuit in this case is legitimate, transferred the claim in this case to the defendant even though C was insolvent. This asserts that it is a fraudulent act that reduces the joint security of the general creditor, such as the plaintiff, etc.
However, in the case where the creditor filed a lawsuit against the beneficiary seeking cancellation or restitution of the fraudulent act on the ground of the debtor's fraudulent act on the ground of the debtor's property, and the creditor has been released or terminated during the lawsuit, and the creditor has returned to the debtor by punishing the debtor the property for which return was sought by the revocation of the fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, the creditor's revocation lawsuit loses the benefit in the protection of rights as a result of the lawsuit, unless there are special circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da85157 Decided March 27, 2008). As seen earlier, the Defendant again transferred the instant claim to C on April 9, 2018, and thus, the Plaintiff sought restitution by revocation of the fraudulent act.