beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding "additional judgment" as stated in paragraph (2) below to the plaintiff's assertion related to the preserved claim in the creditor revocation lawsuit. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that, due to the waiver agreement between the Defendant and D on the purport of the claim and appeal, the amount of non-use damage resulting from the non-use of and benefit from the instant building constitutes the preserved claim of the obligee’s revocation lawsuit.
B. Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable at the time of the fraudulent act that there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future in the near future, and where a claim has been created in the near future because its probability has been realized, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da27905, Nov. 28, 1995). In light of the above legal principles, in this case, health class and the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone, it is impossible for the plaintiffs to operate the car repair point on the land stated in "the purport of the claim and appeal" due to the waiver of the superficies agreement, and thus it was immediately impossible to use and make profits from the building of this case.
It is insufficient to recognize that the above damage liability was highly probable, and there is no other evidence.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.