The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The principle of trust and good faith under the Civil Act is an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise his/her right or perform his/her duty in a manner that violates the principle of trust and good faith, taking into account the other party’s interest. In order to deny a party’s exercise of right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, it should be deemed reasonable that the other party provided good faith to the other party or has good faith objectively, and the other party’s exercise of right against the other party’s good faith should have reached

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da3802, Dec. 10, 1991; 2003Da18401, May 26, 2006). Each obligee meeting the requirements for the obligee’s right of revocation may seek revocation of the obligor’s disposal of property as its inherent right and seek restitution. As such, in a case where multiple creditors have filed a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act and a claim for restitution of original status at the same time or at different time, these lawsuit do not constitute double lawsuit, and the same claim filed thereafter does not become a benefit in the protection of the obligee’s right.

However, in a case where a creditor has won a favorable judgment on his/her claim for cancellation and restitution of the same fraudulent act, and the judgment became final and conclusive accordingly, the creditor’s claim for cancellation and restitution of the property or the value thereof would have no benefit in the protection of rights to the extent that it overlaps (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da19558, Jul. 11, 2003; 2007Da84352, Apr. 24, 2008).