1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. The obligee’s right of revocation in respect of the instant lawsuit is a right to revoke the obligor’s act of disposal of the property made by the fraudulent act and to seek restitution for its original condition, and is not a right to exclusively satisfy the obligee who exercises the obligee’s right of revocation on behalf of the obligee. Therefore, in a case where the obligee filed a lawsuit against the beneficiary on the ground of a fraudulent act on the ground of the obligor’s real property and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation or termination of the said fraudulent act, and the obligee’s return to the obligor by means of the revocation or termination of the said fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances, the obligee’s right of revocation is no longer entitled to the benefit of protection of rights by the lawsuit, barring any special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da85157 Decided March 27, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, the case in this case asserted that C’s act of selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant was a fraudulent act, and sought restitution of responsible property through the cancellation of the above sales contract. According to the written evidence Nos. 9 and 10, the defendant revoked the above sales contract on May 2, 2017 during the proceeding of the lawsuit in this case and restored the above real estate to C’s responsible property. Thus, since the purpose of the plaintiff’s realization through the lawsuit in this case was already achieved by the cancellation of the sales contract for the real estate in this case, there is no benefit of protection of rights.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. If so, the instant lawsuit is dismissed, but the burden of litigation cost is borne by each party in consideration of the cancellation of the sales contract while the instant lawsuit is pending.