[1] Qualifications for the defendant in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act

[2] Where a creditor files a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against a subsequent purchaser, the effect of revocation and the scope of the fraudulent act subject to revocation

[1] In order for a creditor to exercise the obligee's right of revocation, a lawsuit may not be brought against the debtor, against the person who has been benefited by a fraudulent act or against the person who acquired it, claiming the revocation of the legal act.

[2] In a case where a creditor files a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against a subsequent purchaser, along with the revocation of a fraudulent act, and the revocation thereof is effective only in a relative relationship between the creditor and the subsequent purchaser, and does not affect the legal relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary. Therefore, the fraudulent act subject to revocation is limited to a legal act conducted between the debtor and the beneficiary, and the legal act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to revocation.

[1] Article 406 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 406 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da13717 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2347) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1989 delivered on February 23, 198 (Gong1988, 587), Supreme Court Decision 2002Ma1156 delivered on May 10, 202 (Gong2002Ha, 1758)

Development Lease Co., Ltd.

Sami United Nations Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jae-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na57460 delivered on April 2, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. In order for a creditor to exercise the right of revocation, a lawsuit may be brought against a person who has been benefited from a fraudulent act or against a person who acquired it, and thus, the debtor cannot be brought an action against the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da13717, Aug. 13, 1991). In a case where a creditor files a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act against a subsequent purchaser for the revocation of a fraudulent act, the effect of revocation is limited to the relative relationship between the creditor and the subsequent purchaser, and it does not affect the legal relationship between the debtor and the subsequent purchaser (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Da1989, Feb. 23, 198; 2002Ma156, May 10, 2002). In this case, a fraudulent act subject to revocation is limited to a juristic act conducted between the debtor and the beneficiary, and any juristic act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to revocation.

Therefore, the court below declared the revocation of a legal act between the debtor and the beneficiary in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act filed by the plaintiff against the subsequent purchaser, who is a creditor, and ordered the subsequent purchaser to restore the name of the defendant to Samchiteex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Samchiteex"), is just in accordance with the above legal principles. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the ground of appeal No. 1, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the eligibility for the defendant in the lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, which is subject

2. On December 20, 200, the court below asserted that the defendant's legal act of seeking cancellation of a judicial compromise is against res judicata effect, i.e., the defendant's consent to transfer the waste disposal business of this case to the defendant on December 20, 200 in lieu of payment of debt, and accordingly, the defendant's consent to transfer the waste disposal business of this case to the defendant on December 20, 200, and so long as the defendant obtained permission to change the title of registration on the waste disposal business of this case from the Superintendent of the Local Administration, the court below should cancel the judicial compromise through the quasi-Review procedure, and it is not legally allowed to seek cancellation of the judicial compromise through the creditor's revocation procedure, not through the quasi-Review procedure, but rather through the creditor's revocation procedure. The court below's determination that the plaintiff's legal act of seeking cancellation as a fraudulent act is just and acceptable, and it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above legal principles as to the defendant's consent to the execution of the judicial compromise procedure of this case's title.

3. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there is no interest in filing a lawsuit to seek a change in the title of permission for the waste disposal business of this case since the waste disposal facilities related to the waste disposal business of this case were already sold to a third party after the auction procedure had been already conducted, and there is no interest in filing a lawsuit to seek a change in the title of permission for the waste disposal business of this case. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that trigrax does not have a interest in filing a lawsuit to seek a change in the title of permission as long as only the title of permission for the waste disposal business of this case can be transferred separately from the defendant to the person equipped with the facilities and equipment under the Wastes Control Act after restoring the title of permission for the waste disposal business

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)