[1] In a case where each obligee who satisfies the requirements for obligee's right of revocation has filed a lawsuit for revocation and restitution at the same time or at this time, whether these lawsuit constitutes a double suit (negative); and in a case where a creditor who claims revocation and restitution of the same fraudulent act and a judgment in favor of the obligee becomes final and conclusive after a favorable judgment has been rendered in favor of the obligee, whether the other obligee's claim thereafter has no benefit in protecting the rights

[2] Whether the assertion that a beneficiary who has completed the return of property or value pursuant to a final and conclusive judgment does not have any interest in the protection of rights against the revocation of fraudulent act by other creditors and the claim for restitution (negative in principle)

[1] Articles 406(1) and 407 of the Civil Act; Articles 248 and 259 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 2, 406(1), and 407 of the Civil Act; Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19558 decided Jul. 11, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1717) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67806 decided May 27, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1039)

DNho Forest Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Asian, Attorney Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 2, 2012

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na39284 Decided March 19, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

The court below acknowledged the defendant's defense that the lawsuit of this case where the scope of compensation overlaps with the above final judgment is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights in the lawsuit of this case since the defendant completed the lawsuit of this case where the scope of compensation overlaps with the above final judgment, and the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive in the lawsuit of revocation of fraudulent act (hereinafter "the lawsuit of this case") filed against the defendant against the defendant. ② The defendant's payment of the whole amount of the price of the medicine was an act impairing equity among the revocation creditors, and ③ even if the defendant completed the recovery of the value pursuant to the above final and conclusive judgment, it was rejected in the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the defendant's defense cannot be accepted in the lawsuit of this case for the purpose of the protection of rights, based on the principle of trust and good faith, on the ground that the defendant's submission of materials for the purpose of the lawsuit of this case for the protection of rights cannot be accepted, even though there is no special difference between the preceding lawsuit and the lawsuit of this case.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

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 violation of equity or trust in consideration of the other party’s interest. In order to deny the exercise of right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, it should be given to the other party or objectively deemed that the other party has a good faith, and the other party’s exercise of right against the other party’s good faith should reach an extent that is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da3802, Dec. 10, 1991, etc.).

Each obligee meeting the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation is entitled to seek restitution, revoking the obligor’s disposal of his/her own right and seeking restitution. Thus, where multiple obligees have filed a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution at the same time or at different times, these lawsuits do not constitute double lawsuit. Moreover, the same obligee’s claim for revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution to the original state against which one obligee became final and conclusive by winning a favorable judgment as to the same fraudulent act does not constitute a benefit in the protection of rights. However, where the recovery of property or value has been completed by a final and conclusive judgment, the obligee’s claim for revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution to the original state would no benefit in the protection of rights to the extent that overlap with the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da19558, Jul. 11, 2003; 2004Da67806, May 27, 2005). Moreover, even if the obligee’s return of property or value to another obligee’s claim for restitution would not be contrary to the same obligee’s interest.

However, in a prior suit filed by the Defendant in this case, when the judgment ordering compensation for value against the Defendant was rendered and confirmed, the Defendant returned the value of the medicine in accordance with the judgment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the circumstance that the Plaintiff conspired with the medicine for the purpose of harming the Plaintiff in the process. Even though the Defendant’s return of value was pending in the lawsuit in this case filed by the Plaintiff and the return of the said value resulted in an unfair outcome of receiving repayment in fact than other creditors, such circumstance alone does not constitute a violation of the principle of trust and good faith.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that the Defendant’s defense violated the principle of good faith, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of good faith and the interest in protecting rights, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)