beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. Whether the appeal by the Defendant is lawful or not, at the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant and the co-defendant B of the first instance trial, and filed a claim against the co-defendant C of the first instance trial for the cancellation of the transfer contract concluded between the Defendant and C on the patent right listed in the separate sheet and the implementation of the procedure for the cancellation of the transfer registration in the name of C. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, B and C in its entirety.
However, in relation to the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the revocation of the debtor's fraudulent act is not absolute revocation, but relative to the relation against the beneficiary in bad faith or the subsequent purchaser in bad faith, so the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act is filed against the beneficiary in bad faith or the subsequent purchaser in bad faith, and it cannot be filed against
(See Supreme Court Decision 67Da1839 delivered on December 26, 1967). Therefore, only a beneficiary or subsequent purchaser may become a defendant in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act.
In this case, when filing an appeal in this case, the defendant did not appeal against the part concerning the claim for reimbursement which is disadvantageous to the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is evident that the defendant appealed against only the part concerning the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution among the judgment of the court of first instance, which is not a sentence against the defendant.
Thus, the defendant's appeal is unlawful as it is against the judgment against others other than himself.
2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal of this case, which is unlawful prior to the determination of the merits.