Whether a creditor who acquired a claim after a fraudulent act is included in a creditor who is subject to the revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution under Article 407 of the Civil Act (negative)

The obligee's right of revocation, where the obligor has committed an act of reducing his/her general property with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, has the right to preserve the obligor's property for all creditors by cancelling the act and restoring the obligor's property to its original state, but the obligee who has acquired any claim after the fraudulent act does not grasp the property restored by the revocation of the fraudulent act as the obligee's joint security at the time of the acquisition of the claim, and does not include the obligee who

Articles 406 and 407 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff’s community credit cooperatives (Law Firm Chang, Attorneys Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2008Na17524 Decided February 4, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The obligee's right of revocation, where the obligor has committed an act of reducing his/her general property with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, has the right to preserve the obligor's property for all creditors by cancelling the act and restoring the obligor's property to its original state, or the obligee who has acquired any claim after the fraudulent act does not grasp the property restored by the revocation of the fraudulent act as the obligee's joint security at the time of the acquisition of the claim and does not include the obligee who

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant 2's claim for non-party 1 to non-party 1, 198, 190,00 won on December 31, 198, and 20,00 won on December 30, 200, and the non-party 1 to the defendant 2 who is the wife's property division on June 25, 2001, and the non-party 2's claim for non-party 1 to whom the non-party 4 was declared 0,00 won on June 26, 201, and the non-party 1 to whom the non-party 2's claim for the above non-party 1 to whom the non-party 1 had been declared 0,00 won on June 1, 200, and the non-party 1 to whom the non-party 2's claim for damages for non-party 1 to whom the non-party 3's claim for damages for non-party 1 and the non-party 2's claim for damages.

However, in light of the above legal principles, the court below should first consider whether the defendant acquired consolation money and child support claims against the non-party 1 after the donation of each real estate of this case, which is a fraudulent act, and if the above claim was acquired after the fraudulent act, the defendant should not be included in the creditor who has the effect of revocation of fraudulent act and restoration to original state under Article 407 of the Civil Code, so it should have taken measures such as exclusion of the above claim from the distribution of dividends. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the creditor who has the effect of revocation of the fraudulent act,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment based on the employment evidence, and judged that it is difficult to recognize the defendant's claims based on the decision of compulsory adjustment of this case as false claims through false conspiracy. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)