beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation are 50% and 50%.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the court’s reasoning is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff's determination as to the cause of the claim is that the claim established by the decision of this case on the loan of this case that the plaintiff acquired is the right to be preserved for the obligee's right of revocation, and that the contract was concluded with the defendant A and the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed in the future of the defendant A and that the establishment registration was completed in the future of the defendant B after the contract was concluded with the defendant B with regard to the real estate of this case which is one of his sole property in excess of the debt of this case, constitutes a fraudulent act as the act of reducing the joint security against the general creditors including the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendants, who are malicious beneficiaries, are obliged to cancel the above sale reservation and the right to claim the transfer of ownership and to perform the procedure of cancelling the establishment registration of the
However, in order for the Plaintiff to exercise the right to revoke the fraudulent act against the Defendants, first of all, the Plaintiff’s claim against C, the preserved right to revoke the fraudulent act, should exist. In full view of the purport of evidence No. 13-1 of the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff, as a transferee of the claim that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation had based on the judgment of this case against C, was holding the claim of this case at the time of the lawsuit of this case. However, after the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff exempted the above C from the remainder after subtracting nine million won out of the above debt, and it is recognized that C paid in full nine million won of the remaining debt amount that was exempted as above on June 19, 2014.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has no claim based on the instant loan ruling against C.