The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

In principle, a declaration of intention in collusion with the other party is null and void and any person may assert the invalidity thereof. However, with respect to a third party in good faith who has been in good faith and has a new legal interest on the basis of the legal relationship formed externally by a false indication, not only the party to the false indication but also any person may not oppose the invalidity of the false indication. The purport of not allowing the third party to oppose the false indication is to protect a person who enters a legal relationship with a legal interest in a legal relationship with a distinct legal cause based on the separate legal basis, and the scope of the third party should not be determined simply on the basis of the legal relationship, but also on the basis of whether the third party has a new legal interest based on the false indication.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da51258 delivered on July 6, 2000. Accordingly, where the transferee’s creditor received a seizure and collection order of the claim for the return of the lease deposit after the transfer of the claim for the return of the lease deposit, and the transfer contract for the claim for the return of the lease deposit becomes null and void as a false representation, such creditor shall be deemed to be a third party who actually has a new legal interest based on the legal relationship formed out of the external form.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below is merely a general creditor E, the largest transferee of the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case, who acquired the collection right by obtaining a seizure and collection order as to the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case from the largest transferee for the collection of his claim for the lease deposit of this case.