The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the cost of the lawsuit.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order for a creditor to exercise the creditor's right of revocation against a person who is not a beneficiary under Article 406 (1) of the Civil Act, the creditor shall make a claim by means of filing a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act between the debtor and the beneficiary within the period prescribed in Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act, and even if a creditor has already filed a lawsuit against a beneficiary seeking revocation of a fraudulent act and has been sentenced to a judgment of revocation of a legal act between the debtor and the beneficiary, the judgment cannot be effective against a person who is not the defendant in the lawsuit. Thus, in order for a creditor to seek restitution by exercising the creditor's right of revocation against a person who is not a beneficiary separately from the lawsuit, it shall not be required to make a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act between the debtor and the beneficiary within the period prescribed in Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da17535, Jun. 9, 2005).

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311 Decided April 10, 2018). 2. A.

The judgment below

The reasons and records reveal the following facts.

1) The debtor D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

(2) On December 9, 2010, the Plaintiff and F Co., Ltd. jointly with F Co., Ltd., for a promissory note No. 2.3 billion won in face value (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

(2) D) between D and E (hereinafter “E”) on January 6, 2012, as well as between D and E (hereinafter “E”), KRW 5 billion from E to December 31, 2013.