[1] The scope of validity of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposition

[2] Where a creditor of the transferor of a claim has been issued a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the transferred claim against the transferee as the right to claim restitution due to the revocation of a fraudulent act, whether the transferee's return of the transferred claim to the transferor at his/her discretion or according to the failure of the claimant in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act filed by another creditor violates the effect of the provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal (negative)

[3] The effect of revocation in a case where a creditor files a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act with the revocation of a fraudulent act and the recovery of a responsible property from a beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser

[1] Article 300(1) of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 406(1) and 407 of the Civil Act, Article 300(1) of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 406(1) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da9407 delivered on April 12, 1991 (Gong1991Sang, 1367) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 84Ma7 dated April 16, 1984 (Gong1984, 1015) Supreme Court Decision 87Meu458 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong198, 884) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1989 delivered on February 23, 198 (Gong198, 587) (Gong199Da9011 delivered on May 29, 2001) (Gong201Ha, 1444) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 200Da208384 delivered on May 10, 202 (Gong198, 2005Ha, 1444) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2008Ha25305Ha294 decided May 25204, 209405.

Dongyang Integrated Financial Securities Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Namsan, Attorneys Hah Ho-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Bankruptcy Trustee of the bankrupt Dakdong Corporation

UNNN Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jin-Jin Law, Attorneys Man-moo, Counsel for defendant-

Busan High Court Decision 2003Na13796 delivered on April 14, 2004

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

If a provisional disposition order is issued on an object, the effect of the provisional disposition prohibition is only effective to the extent of infringing the rights of the creditor of the provisional disposition. Thus, the creditor of the provisional disposition can deny the effect of the act of disposal in violation of the provisional disposition within the extent of the right to be preserved (see Supreme Court Order 84Ma7, Apr. 16, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Da458, Apr. 25, 198; Supreme Court Decision 90Da9407, Apr. 12, 1991, etc.). The creditor's right of revocation is not only a right to cancel the disposal of the obligor's property by fraudulent act and to seek restitution to the obligor for the entire creditor of the obligor's responsible property deviating from the fraudulent act, but it does not conflict with the creditor's right to claim restitution against the transferor due to fraudulent act and thus, it does not conflict with the transferee's right to claim restitution of the claim against the transferor, which is the creditor of the provisional disposition revocation order.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the court below's ruling that the defendant 2 transferred the above provisional disposition 30 billion won to the defendant 2 and the provisional disposition 30 billion won on the ground that the defendant 2's transfer of the above provisional disposition 40 billion won to the defendant 2 and the provisional disposition 199, and that the defendant 2 transferred the above provisional disposition 30 billion won to the defendant 2 and the provisional disposition 40 billion won on the ground that the plaintiff's transfer of the above provisional disposition 40 billion won to the defendant 2 and the provisional disposition 50 billion won on the ground that the plaintiff's transfer of the above provisional disposition 30 billion won was revoked, and the plaintiff's claim 1,979,312,327 won (the plaintiff 200,000 won on the ground that the defendant 2's transfer of the above provisional disposition 40 billion won was revoked, and the plaintiff's claim 200,000 won on the above provisional disposition 200.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to accept the Defendant’s Intervenor’s assertion that the claim by Kim Jong-hwan was invalid as a procedural act contrary to the good faith principle, and it is also reasonable to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lawsuit seeking revocation against the transfer of the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy claim 1 is invalid as it constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy with Kim Jong-hwan, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is asserted only in the final appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da24325, Sept. 25, 1992, etc.).

As pointed out in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the provisional injunction against disposal of claims. The ground of appeal on this part cannot be

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Where a creditor files a lawsuit for the revocation of a fraudulent act with the revocation of a fraudulent act with the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, the effect of the revocation is limited to the relationship between the creditor, beneficiary, or subsequent purchaser. Thus, even if the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser bears the obligation to restore the original state due to the revocation of the fraudulent act or to compensate for the equivalent value equivalent thereto, it is merely the legal effect arising from the relationship between the creditor and the subsequent purchaser, and the legal relationship arising from the revocation is not formed between the debtor and the debtor, but is not the legal relationship arising from the revocation. The validity of the revocation is not the restoration to the debtor's responsible property retroactively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da9011, May 29, 2001; 2002Ma1156, May 10, 2002; 2003Da19558, Jul. 11, 2003).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records in light of the above legal principles, if the seized claim was already transferred by meeting the requisite against the third party at the time of seizure and assignment order, and the order was not effective, the court below held that even if the above assignment contract was cancelled in a subsequent lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act and the claim was returned to the original creditor, the seizure and assignment order which was already invalidated becomes effective again, and that the claim is not entirely owned by the execution creditor, and that the provisional seizure, seizure and assignment order of this case are valid on the premise that the bankruptcy claim of this case was restored to the responsible property of the friendly Products. It is justifiable to reject the defendant's assertion that the provisional seizure, seizure and assignment order of

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the attachment and assignment order due to the revocation of fraudulent act as pointed out in the ground of appeal. This part of the ground of appeal is without merit on the premise that the judgment of revocation of fraudulent act is absolutely effective, contrary to the aforementioned legal principles, on the premise that the so-called theory of right of revocation is contrary to the aforementioned legal principles.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)