The revocation of a fraudulent act is a relative revocation between the parties to the revocation lawsuit, and a third party other than the parties is not affected by that legal relationship.

The revocation of a fraudulent act is effective relatively between the parties to the revocation lawsuit, and a third party, other than the parties, is not affected by the legal relationship due to the revocation, unless there are other special circumstances, and it is intended to adjust the interests of the creditor and beneficiary of the revocation lawsuit and the third party.

Civil Code § 482. (Effect of Voluntary Performance by Subrogation)

2014 Gohap518063

○○ Bank

QQQQ

AA Bank and BB Steel may not be recognized as dividends.

3) 또한 피고 AA은행, BB철강의 CCC에 대한 채권 및 피고 QQQQ(소관 :DDD세무서, FF세무서)의 압류가 터 잡은 GGGG 등의 CCC에 대한 채권은 모두 가장채권으로 의심된다.

4) Therefore, the instant distribution schedule must be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

나. 피고 QQQQ에 대한 청구에 대한 판단

1) 피고 QQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서, FF세무서)의 압류의 기초가 된 CCC과 GGGG 등 사이의 각 채권양도양수계약이 관련 민사소송에서 사해행위를 이유로 취소된 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다.

2) However, the revocation of a fraudulent act has the effect of relatively revocation between the parties to the revocation lawsuit.

Any third party, other than the party, who has any capacity, shall be reduced to revocation, except in extenuating circumstances.

the revocation of the fraudulent act is not affected by the legal relationship and only the relative effect of the revocation of the fraudulent act

to acknowledge this action is to coordinate the interests of creditors and beneficiaries of the fraudulent act, and of third parties;

on the basis of a fraudulent act, the scope of the third party that does not have the effect of such revocation.

Only the subsequent purchaser, etc. of the target real estate, which is a new legal act regarding real estate, shall be limited.

It is not a beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da49532, Nov. 10, 2005), and new beneficiary.

It does not establish a valid legal relationship, but it has already been held as a beneficiary's own creditor.

for this purpose, the judgment of revocation of fraudulent act against the person who seized the claim acquired by the beneficiary by the fraudulent act

Nor can it be deemed that it has an effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da7109, Jun. 11, 2009).

Therefore, in order to secure the taxation rights already held as the inherent creditors of GGGG, etc.

GGGG 등이 사해행위로 취득한 이 사건 환급금채권을 압류한 피고 QQQQ(소관 DDD세무서, FF세무서)에게 관련 민사소송에서의 사해행위 취소의 효력이 미친다 고 볼 수는 없다.

3) 또한 피고 QQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서, FF세무서)의 압류는 CCC과 GGGG 등 사이의 각 채권양도양수계약에 따라 GGGG등이 양수한 이 사건 환급금채권에 대하여 루어진 것이지 GGGG 등의 CCC에 대한 채권(원고는 그 채권이 무엇인지도 특정하지 않고 있다)에 대하여 이루어진 것이 아니고 그 채권을 가장채권이라고 볼 만한 증거도 없다.

4) 따라서 원고의 피고 QQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서, FF세무서)에 대한 위 주장은 이유 없다.

C. Determination as to the claim against Defendant AA Bank, BB Steel

1) The fact that each claim transfer and takeover contract between CCC and Defendant AA Bank and BB Steel is confirmed invalid in the relevant civil procedure is as seen earlier.

2) However, oral pleadings are made in each entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6.

In full view of the overall purport of the contract, Defendant AA Bank, BB Steel Co., Ltd.

In the position of the transferee of the refund claim of this case, he did not participate in the distribution procedure of this case.

D. As a creditor of the CCC, Defendant AA Bank against the right to claim the withdrawal of the instant deposit.

12. The provisional seizure order of KRW 00,000,000 (○○○○○○○○○○○○ court 000Kadan000, which issued a final payment order of KRW 0000,000 of the same court thereafter, issued a provisional seizure order of KRW 17.18, 2013 to the provisional seizure order of KRW 0,000 as its title; Defendant BB Steel received the provisional seizure order of KRW 0,000 as its title; Defendant BB Steel received the provisional seizure order of KRW 0,00,000 as its claim amount as of March 25, 2013; Defendant BB Steel received the provisional seizure order of KRW 0,00,000 as its title of execution; and Defendant BB Steel’s participation in the provisional seizure or distribution order of KRW 0,000 as its title of execution; and Defendant BCC’s participation in the provisional seizure order of KRW 0,000 as its title of execution; and Defendant BCC’s participation in the provisional distribution order of this case.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on Defendant AA Bank, BB steel is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so ordered.

shall be determined as above.

2014.07.25

2014.08.29

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

○○○○ ○○ Court 000 Other 00000 on March 14, 2014 with respect to a dividend procedure case

성한 배당표 중 피고 QQQQ에 대한 배당액 000,000,000원을 000,000,000원으로, 피고 주식회사 AA은행에 대한 배당액 00,000,000원을 0원으로, 피고 BB철강 주식회사에 대한 배당액 000,000,000원을 0원으로, 원고에 대한 배당액 000,000,000원을 0,000,000,000원으로 각 경정한다.

1. Basic facts

가. 주식회사 CCC(이하 'CCC'이라 한다)은 피고 QQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서)에 대하여 가지는 2011년도 국세환급금채권(이하 '이 사건 환급금채권'이라 한다)을 아래와 같이 양도(이하 '이 사건 각 채권양도양수계약'이라 한다)하고, 피고 QQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서)에게 채권양도통지를 하였다. "나. 피고(소관 : DDD세무서, FF세무서)는 GGGG 주식회사(이하 GGGG'이라한다), HHHHH 주식회사(이하 'HHHHH'라 한다), JJJJJ 주식회사(이하 'JJJJJ'이라 하고,",GGGG, HHHHH, JJJJJ을 합하여 'GGGG 등'이라 한다)의 조세채권자로서 위와 같이 GGGG 등이 양수한 이 사건 환급금채권을 아래와 같이 압류하였다.다. 피고 QQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서)은 2012. 4. 9. 이 사건 환급금채권에 대한 채권양도 및 채권가압류 등의 경합을 이유로 ○○○○○○법원 0000년 금제0000호로 0,000,000,000원을 혼합공탁하였다(이하 '이 사건 공탁'이라 한다). 라. 원고는 2012. 7. 20. 피고 주식회사 AA은행(이하 '피고 AA은행'이라 한다), 피고 BB철강 주식회사(이하 '피고 BB철강'이라 한다), GGGG 등을 상대로 ○○○○법원 0000가합000000호로 사해행위를 원인으로 이 사건 각 채권양도양수계약의 취소 등을 구하는 사해행위취소 소송(이하 '관련 민사소송'이라 한다)을 제기하였는데, 위 법원은 2013. 1. 11. CCC과 피고 AA은행, BB철강 사이의 각 채권양도양수계약이 무효임을 확인하고 스틸엠과 화인스틸 등 사이의 각 채권양도양수계약을 취소하는 내용의 화해권고결정(이하 '이 사건 화해권고결정'이라 한다)을 하였고, 그 무렵 위 화해권고결정은 확정되었다.

E. After that, ○○○○○○○○ court, the debtor as CCC, commenced the distribution procedure (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”) with respect to the instant deposited money. On March 14, 2014, the executive officer drafted a distribution schedule stating that the amount to be actually distributed is KRW 0,00,000,000 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). (f) On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the instant dividends against the Defendants out of the distribution schedule on the date of distribution, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on March 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1 (including provisional number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) 피고 QQQQQQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서, FF세무서)은 CCC과 GGGG 등 사이의 이 사건 각 채권양도양수계약이 채권자들을 해한다는 것을 알고서 악의로 GGGG등이 양수한 이 사건 환급금채권을 압류하였으므로, 피고 QQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서, FF세무서)은 사해행위 취소의 상대적 효력에 의하여 보호받을 수 없다. 따라서 이 사건 공탁금에 대한 피고 QQQQ(소관 : DDD세무서, FF세무서)의 배당은 인정될 수 없다. 2) 또한 피고 AA은행, BB철강은 이미 관련 민사소송에서 무효임이 확인된 사해행위의 악의의 수익자이므로, 이 사건 환급금채권의 변경인 이 사건 공탁금에 대한