(a) The case of accepting a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act;

(b) The other party to the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act;

A. It is a fraudulent act that the beneficiary in collusion with the debtor for the purpose of undermining the creditor to acquire the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the beneficiary by pretending to trade the forest land owned by the debtor

B. The other party to the lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act is always limited to the beneficiary who is the other party to the claim for return of profit and the debtor is not the defendant.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

63Da827 decided Apr. 14, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 69Da1839 decided Dec. 26, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 69Da1839 decided Dec. 26, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 69Da1839 decided Dec. 26, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 15Da387 decided Apr. 417, 195; Supreme Court Decision 406Da408 decided Apr. 14, 1964 (No. 9,105)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (66A720) Gunsan Branch Court of the District Court of the first instance

The judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

The act of transfer on June 9, 200 between the defendant and the non-party 1 shall be revoked.

On June 9, 66.6.9, the defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of non-party 1-2 from among the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale which was passed through as No. 4897 for the registry office of the Jeonju District Court.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Order Nos. 2, 3, and 4

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

The defendant is the non-party 1's wife and the non-party 1/2 of the real estate stated in the attached list. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 1's right to the non-party 2 as shown in the above order. The plaintiff's deposit of sulfur powder powder with the above non-party 2 from December 23, 65 to May 22, 66. The non-party 1's non-party 6 evidence 6's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument are hard to recognize that the non-party 2's claim was non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's pleading.

Therefore, the above recognition of the non-party and the defendant's above recognition of fraudulent act is considered to be a fraudulent act. Accordingly, in this case, the defendant's legal representative's ground for registration is clear and clear between the defendant and the non-party 1, and thus, in this case, the defendant's legal representative must file a claim against both parties. The plaintiff's lawsuit that did not reach this ground for registration cannot be dismissed because it is not a party's qualification, but its original revocation does not take effect relatively outside the original revocation of fraudulent act. Thus, the defendant's qualification is limited to the other party of the claim for the return of profits at all times, and the debtor cannot be a co-defendant in the exercise of the right to revoke the claim. The plaintiff's claim for the revocation of fraudulent act

Therefore, as the plaintiff's claim is accepted, it exceeded the plaintiff's claims, and the registration indication to be cancelled also changes the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant's appeal to the scope of the above acceptance is dismissed as it is without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)