beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim that is changed in exchange at the trial are all dismissed.
2. Appeal;
Reasons
1. The grounds for appeal as to the plaintiff's primary claim cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. Even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is re-examineed in light of the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff, the fact-finding and judgment in the court of first instance
Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff makes a decision on the conjunctive claim that is changed in exchange at the court of the first instance and deletes the decision on the existing conjunctive claim, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has the right to receive reimbursement in proportion to the Defendant, who is another revocation creditor, for the property restored to the obligor by exercising the obligee’s right of revocation. In the instant auction procedure by the Defendant’s motion, the Plaintiff lost the right to receive a distribution by making a demand for distribution after the lapse of
On the other hand, since the property returned to the debtor's responsible property through the revocation of fraudulent act has an effect for all creditors' interests, in the auction procedure for real estate owned by the beneficiary of fraudulent act that the revocation creditor has recovered, in case where the revocation creditor demands dividends from the beneficiary based on the judgment on compensation for the value of the beneficiary, and received dividends, even if other revocation creditor fails to make a demand for distribution, such amount of dividends does not belong to the revocation creditor, and is restored to the debtor's responsible property, and the recovered debtor's responsible property is deposited by the execution court. In fact, even in the auction procedure of this case, the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the dividends against the defendant was deposited by the Ulsan District Court in 2019, the rightful right holder is the plaintiff, and thus, the confirmation of the right to demand distribution is sought.
(b).