A. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is liable to prove that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is in bad faith.

(b) double selling and fraudulent selling of specific goods;

A. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is liable to prove that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is in bad faith.

B. The debtor who files a claim for the registration of ownership transfer for a specific material cannot be asserted as a fraudulent act even if the specific material was twice disposed of.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Nois529 delivered on January 25, 1962 decided October 8, 1959

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Chuncheon District Court Decision 68Na52 delivered on September 26, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are examined;

The court below erred in holding that the plaintiff was liable to prove the cancellation of the plaintiff's fraudulent act's malicious act, but the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is not liable to prove the fact that the plaintiff's fraudulent act is bad faith. Thus, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's act of purchasing and selling the plaintiff's real estate was not identical to the plaintiff's 1's bad faith as the beneficiary's 4294 citizen's judgment was erroneous. However, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's act of selling and selling the plaintiff's real estate was not identical to that of the plaintiff's 1's 6th judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's claim was not identical to the plaintiff's 9th judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's act of selling and selling the real estate was not identical to that of the plaintiff's 1's 6th judgment on the ground that the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's previous judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's act of selling and selling the real estate was not identical to that of the plaintiff's 1's 9th judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)