1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant adds the following judgments as to the new argument in the trial of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance

2. The defendant's argument that the defendant is also a creditor of the non-party company, and the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to receive dividends in proportion to the amount of claims held against the non-party company regarding the claim of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts to the purport that the plaintiff is liable to pay only the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's proportional distribution of the claim of this case in proportion to the

In this regard, since the revocation of fraudulent act and restitution are effective for all creditors' interest, the creditor is not entitled to preferential payment of the property restored to the debtor by exercising the creditor's right of revocation, but other creditors may also be entitled to receive the amount of proportional distribution equivalent to his/her claim out of the total amount of claims. However, this means that other creditors may receive the amount of proportional distribution from the debtor's property restored to the joint security of claims through the legal procedures such as the Civil Execution Act, and other creditors shall acquire the right to directly seek the amount of proportional distribution against the cancelled creditor without going through such legal procedures.

It cannot be deemed that the obligation to distribute the property or the equivalent value compensation delivered to the revocation creditor is recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da37837 Decided June 12, 2008). Therefore, even if the defendant is a creditor against the non-party company, it cannot be deemed that the defendant, as the cancelled creditor, has the obligation to distribute the equivalent amount to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3...