1. The other party to the revocation of the fraudulent act;

2. Whether a mortgage contract for payment in kind of legitimate obligation or for the security thereof is a fraudulent act;

1. The revocation of a fraudulent act is intended only in relation to the beneficiary who acquired the debtor's property and the subsequent purchaser, by means of cancelling the juristic act causing the creditor's property and receiving compensation on behalf of the latter, to secure the security of claims. If the objective is to achieve such objective, the debtor may not be the defendant;

2. Even if payment in kind of a legitimate obligation or a mortgage contract for the security thereof is concluded, a payment in kind or a mortgage contract for the security of an existing obligation shall constitute a fraudulent act, with the knowledge that a debtor in collusion with some creditors may harm other creditors.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1535 delivered on October 4, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 2258 delivered on November 26, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 406Da1839 delivered on December 26, 196, Supreme Court Decision 67Da1839 delivered on December 26, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 2187DaKadr2187, Supreme Court Decision 406Da308 delivered on December 36, 196)

Plaintiff 1 and nine others

Defendant 1 and two others

Daegu District Court of First Instance (65 Ghana583)

The part on plaintiff 2 in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff 2's objection claim and the appeal against the remaining plaintiffs are dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part of the lawsuit between the plaintiff 2 and the defendants shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances, and the remainder, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiffs shall be borne by the defendants.

Plaintiff 1 and his remaining attorneys such as the Plaintiff

(1) The sales contract between Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1 on January 10, 1965 as to 15 square meters of 15 square meters of 15 square meters of 15 square meters of 15 square meters of 15 coagu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and 1 other (hereinafter “Seoul-gu”), shall be revoked. Defendant 1, as the registration receipt of the Daegu District Court on January 16, 1965, will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the ground of the above sale.

(2) The mortgage contract concluded between Defendant 2 and Nonparty 1 on January 7, 1965, with a maximum amount of KRW 175,000,000, which was concluded on the above real estate between Defendant 2 and Nonparty 1, shall be revoked.

On January 8, 1965, Defendant 2 performed the procedure for cancellation of registration of establishment of the above right to collateral security as set forth in No. 180 for the above right to collateral security.

(3) Defendant 3, upon receipt of the mobilization registration on February 17, 1965 on the above real estate, performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 440,000 on February 17, 1965 and delivered the above real estate to the Plaintiff et al. by Defendant 1.

Litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, etc.

The defendant et al. attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, etc.

First of all, the defendant et al. asserted that the debtor should be jointly the defendant in filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act as a defense to safety, but the revocation of the fraudulent act is only in relation to the beneficiary who acquired the debtor's property and the subsequent purchaser, and it is the purpose of securing the security of the claim by cancelling the legal act which caused the creditor's revocation and by receiving compensation in lieu of the recovery of the property or the compensation therefor. The above purpose is to achieve the security of the claim even if the debtor is not the defendant, the above argument is groundless. Accordingly, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 1 and 2 are judged on the following merits

(2) The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were 0 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were 0 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were 0 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were 0 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 5.

Therefore, the contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 on January 7, 1965 and the contract to establish a right to collateral security with Defendant 1 on January 10, 1965 regarding the building in this case should not be revoked accordingly, and thus, the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral security and the registration of the transfer of ownership should be revoked. Next, the facts that the establishment of a right to collateral security was completed under Defendant 3 after completing the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security under Defendant 1's name as stated in the purport of the claim against the building in this case are not disputed between the parties, and as recognized above, the debtor 1 and Defendant 1 knew that they would harm the plaintiff, etc. who was aware that the defendant 3 acquired the above right to collateral security as the so-called bona fide good faith that he knew of the above facts, and it is difficult to recognize that the testimony of the witness 8 cannot be trusted, and that the statement in subparagraph 5 was recorded as the evidence of the above facts, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that part of the witness's testimony against the defendant 1 and the defendant 2.

Next, the following facts are acknowledged as follows: (a) the plaintiff 2's claim for objection is a creditor against the non-party 1, and the non-party is a creditor against the non-party 1, and (b) he completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of defendant 1 through the registration of ownership transfer on the non-party 2's non-party 6 on the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6; (c) upon entering into a sale contract on the non-party 1 and the defendant 1's non-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 2's counter-party 2's counter-party 2's counter-party 2's counter-party 1's counter-party 2's counter-party 2's counter

Therefore, since the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 2's claims for the principal lawsuit are well-grounded, and therefore, the plaintiff 2's claims for objection is without merit, and thus, the original judgment must be dismissed, and since the part against the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 2 is just, the defendant's appeal against this part is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the part against the plaintiff 2 is actual. Thus, the defendant's appeal against this part is revoked by Article 386 of the same Act and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95, 96, 93, and 89 of the same Act as to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-ro (Presiding Judge) Park Jong-won Park Park-sik