[1] Whether the obligee’s performance of its duty in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act by the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, together with the revocation of the fraudulent act, to recover the responsible property

[2] Whether the duty to register cancellation of ownership transfer registration as restitution following cancellation of fraudulent act is fulfilled

[1] In a case where a creditor files a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act with the revocation of a fraudulent act by the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, the effect of revocation is limited to the relationship between the creditor and the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser. Thus, even if the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser bears the obligation to restore or compensate for the equivalent value arising from the revocation of the fraudulent act, it is merely the legal effect arising from the relationship between the creditor and the subsequent purchaser, and it does not constitute the legal relationship arising from the revocation of the fraudulent act between the debtor and the debtor. In this case, the principal purpose of the creditor is to restore the liability assets deviating from the revocation of the fraudulent act. Thus, the creditor's main purpose is not to restore the liability assets deviating from the revocation of the fraudulent act, and it is not to "the obligation to perform the legal act that is subject to the revocation"

[2] In light of the nature of the duty to cooperate in the application for the registration of real estate, it shall be deemed to be the location of the public office to be registered under Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the special adjudication of the place of registration. Thus, even if the plaintiff is the creditor of a lawsuit for the revocation of fraudulent act, it shall be deemed that the registration office is the location of the registration office for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer due to the revocation of fraudulent act. The plaintiff'

[1] Articles 406 and 407 of the Civil Act; Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 406 and 407 of the Civil Act; Articles 6 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Da9011 decided May 29, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1444), Supreme Court Decision 99Da63183 decided June 1, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1498) Decided February 23, 198 (Gong2001Ha, 1498)

[Judgment of the court below]

Housing Construction Corporation

Daegu High Court Order 2002Ra7 dated February 22, 2002

The reappeal is dismissed.

The court below held that the legal relationship formed by the cancellation of the plaintiff's fraudulent act is the right and duty relation with the execution of the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration against the non-party company and the non-party company, the creditor of the non-party company and the beneficiary of the non-party company, on the ground that the non-party company had monetary claims against the non-party housing construction company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), but sold the real estate located in Gangwon-gun District Office in Incheon at the city of Incheon and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and the non-party company did not fulfill its obligation under Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Act on the ground that the non-party company's domicile was revoked as a fraudulent act and filed a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for registering the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the non-party company, and the legal relationship formed by the cancellation of the plaintiff's fraudulent act was not formed in relation to the rights and obligations of the non-party company.

However, in a case where a creditor files a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act with the revocation of a fraudulent act by the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, the effect of revocation is limited to the relationship between the creditor, beneficiary, or subsequent purchaser, and thus, even if the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser bears the obligation to restore or compensate for the equivalent value arising from the revocation of the fraudulent act, 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. In addition, in this case, the principal purpose of the creditor is to restore the liability assets deviating from the revocation of the fraudulent act itself. Thus, the creditor's main purpose is not to restore the liability assets deviating from the revocation of the fraudulent act, so it is not to say that the obligation is not to perform the legal act that is subject to the revocation, but to perform the obligation in the legal relationship formed by the revocation. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous

However, in the instant case, the issue of performing the obligation to cooperate in the application for registration of real estate is, by its nature, the location of the public office to be registered under Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the special adjudication of the place of registration. Thus, even if the Plaintiff is the creditor of a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, the issue of performing the obligation to register cancellation of registration of ownership transfer as restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act shall be deemed to be the seat of the registry office, and the Plaintiff’s domicile shall not be deemed to be the seat of the registry office. Therefore, the conclusion of the order of the court below that maintained the first instance court’s measure that transferred the instant case to the first instance court located in

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)