In a case where a creditor is sentenced to the revocation of a fraudulent act that orders the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser to recover a responsible property, along with the revocation of a fraudulent act, the validity of the revocation (=the validity of the revocation)

Where a creditor is sentenced to the revocation of a fraudulent act that orders the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser to recover a responsible property, together with the revocation of a fraudulent act, the effect of revocation is limited to that between the creditor and the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, and thus, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is merely liable to reinstate the creditor due to the revocation of the fraudulent act, and the legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor is formed or the revocation is not retroactively restored to the debtor’s responsible property.

According to the relative effect of revocation of fraudulent act, where the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is filed for revocation of fraudulent act on the ground that the act of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is fraudulent act, and the plaintiff's independent party participation is filed, even if the plaintiff's claim against the independent party intervenor is accepted as it is, it does not affect the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, such application for intervention

Article 406(1) of the Civil Act; Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 99Da9011 Decided May 29, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1444) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da23110 Decided August 24, 2006

Tromat Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Taen, Attorneys Ba-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gold Co., Ltd.

Promotion Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Independent Party Intervenor (Law Firm macro, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na2625, 2632 decided April 20, 2012

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the claims by the independent party intervenor shall be reversed, and this part of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor shall be dismissed. The total costs of litigation incurred by the independent party

The legitimacy of the request for intervention by an independent party shall be examined ex officio.

1. An independent party intervention under Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act intends to assert that all or part of the subject matter of a lawsuit is his/her own right, or to settle the conflict between the three parties or legal relationship by participating in a lawsuit as a party and by a single judgment. In addition, an independent party intervention in the prevention of corruption under the latter part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, among an independent party intervention, is objectively recognized as having an intention to harm an intervenor through the lawsuit in question, and it is recognized as having an objective intent to harm the intervenor through the lawsuit in question, and if it is recognized as having concerns over infringing the intervenor's rights or legal status as a result of the lawsuit in question, the third party intervention in the piracy lawsuit in order to prevent a judgment of harming an intervenor to be declared and finalized as a result of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da84720, 84737, Aug. 19, 2010, etc.).

Meanwhile, in cases where a creditor is sentenced to the revocation of a fraudulent act that orders the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser to recover a responsible property, together with the revocation of a fraudulent act, the effect of revocation is limited to the creditor, beneficiary, or subsequent purchaser, and thus, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is merely liable to reinstate the creditor due to the revocation of a fraudulent act. The legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor is formed or the revocation is retroactively effective, not to be restored to the debtor’s responsible property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da9011, May 29, 2001; 2004Da23110, Aug. 24, 2006).

According to the relative effect of revocation of fraudulent act, where the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is filed for revocation of fraudulent act on the ground that the act of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is fraudulent act, and the plaintiff's claim against the independent party is accepted as it is, it does not affect the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant even if the claim against the independent party intervenor is accepted as it is. Therefore, such application for intervention cannot achieve the purpose

2. According to the records, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building owned by the Defendant on the ground that the agreement on June 15, 2009 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) was the cause of the claim, and the independent party intervenor filed a claim for the revocation of fraudulent act against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant agreement constituted fraudulent act, and filed an application for intervention by the independent party.

According to the above legal principles, the independent party intervenor's application for intervention in the instant case is unlawful, since it did not meet the requirements as an intervention in prevention of corruption, which is the prevention of fraudulent damage.

Nevertheless, on the premise that the request for intervention by an independent party intervenor is lawful, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for participation by the independent party intervenor, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the claims of the independent party intervenor is reversed, and this case is sufficient for this court to directly judge. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor falling under the above reversed part is unlawful, and thus, the application is dismissed, and the total cost of lawsuit due to the intervention by the independent party intervenor is borne by the independent party intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)