1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. The reasoning of the judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

(The "the date of the instant sales contract" at the fifth and sixth below the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "the date of the instant lease contract": Provided, That with respect to the defendant's argument raised in the appellate court, the following judgments shall be added.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, among the creditors of Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial, the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation (Seoul Central District Court 2014Na51984) is undergoing a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2014Na51984) against the Defendant based on the claim for reimbursement of approximately KRW 92,230,000,000 among the creditors of Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial, the Defendant is merely obligated to pay the amount within the scope of

Each obligee who satisfies the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation is an inherent right and can seek restitution from the obligor after cancelling the obligor’s property disposal act. Thus, even if multiple obligees have filed a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act and restitution at the same time or at different times, the lawsuit filed by them does not constitute a duplicate lawsuit.

In addition, the fact that a creditor has been rendered a favorable judgment on the claim for revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution with respect to the same fraudulent act and that the judgment became final and conclusive does not cause the same benefit to the protection of the rights of the other creditor thereafter.

On the other hand, only when the property or the value has been restored by it, the claim for the cancellation of fraudulent act by other creditors and the claim for restitution would not have the benefit of protecting the rights to the extent that it overlaps.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19558 delivered on July 11, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67806 delivered on May 27, 2005, etc.). Accordingly, multiple creditors claim revocation of fraudulent act and restitution of the original status.