beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except where the judgment on the Plaintiff’s argument in the trial is added as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s assertion that only the Plaintiff paid 628,770,460 won to the Korean Petroleum Industry according to the final judgment was in collusion with the Plaintiff and the Korean Petroleum Industry, and thus, it cannot be recognized as a repayment contrary to the good faith principle.
B. The principle of trust and good faith refers to an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise a right or perform a duty in a manner that violates equity or trust in consideration of the other party’s interest. In order to deny the exercise of the right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, it should be justified that the other party has provided a good faith to the other party or has a good faith objectively, and the other party’s exercise of the right against the other party’s good faith should be in a situation that is unreasonable in light of the concept of justice
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3802, Dec. 10, 1991). Each obligee meeting the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation may seek revocation of the obligor’s property disposal as its own right and restitution thereof. Therefore, where multiple obligees have filed a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act and a claim for restitution at the same time or at different time, these lawsuits do not constitute double lawsuit, and the same claim raised thereafter does not become a benefit in the protection of the right of other obligees, solely on the fact that a certain obligee has received a favorable judgment by claiming revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution thereof with respect to the same fraudulent act, and that such judgment became final and conclusive.