Other party for whom a creditor may demand the revocation of an act by reason of damage.

The revocation of a fraudulent act may be made only against the beneficiary in bad faith or against the subsequent purchaser, and the debtor cannot be exercised against the debtor, and the revocation claim against the debtor is unlawful.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Korea Education Insurance Co., Ltd.

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2111 delivered on July 12, 1967, Decision 66Na2111 delivered on March 12, 1967

Of the original judgment, the part on Defendant Shin Dong-ro is reversed.

The part concerning the defendant among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.

The part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant Kim Jin-jin's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit arising from the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the same defendant.

1. The revocation of the creditor's fraudulent act in the creditor's right to revoke ex officio is not absolute revocation, but relatively revoked in relation to the beneficiary in bad faith or subsequent purchaser in bad faith, so this right can not be exercised against the debtor, and therefore, the debtor cannot make a claim for revocation against the debtor. Therefore, the lawsuit against the defendant 1, who is the plaintiff's debtor, should be dismissed because the lawsuit against the defendant 1 is unfair. Thus, the part against the defendant 1 among the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance as to the defendant 1 is erroneous and the decision against the defendant was rendered on the merits against the defendant, and the part against the defendant 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance should not be reversed.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant Kim Jin-jin attorney, and the defendant applied for the best rules of witness in the court of first instance to prove the alleged facts, and examined the witness in the same court. Thus, it is not the only method of evidence to apply for the summons of the Jeon-young's Jeon-young, which is cited in the debate, and the court below adopted the witness and summoned him before and after the date of pleading. However, the court below's decision that decided not to examine the witness at the court below is legitimate because the witness did not appear without any justifiable reason even after being served with legitimate reasons. After comparing the original judgment with the records, the court below did not find that there was any error of violating the rules of evidence in the preparation of evidence and fact-finding in the original judgment, and there was no error of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation. Thus, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, among the original judgment, the part concerning the defendant's new road among the original judgment is reversed, and the part concerning the defendant's new road is revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant is dismissed, and the part concerning the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant is assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant, and the appeal against the defendant Kim Jin is dismissed as without merit. The costs of the lawsuit incurred by the defendant's appeal are assessed against the defendant, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro