beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the Defendants, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed in this court, is as follows.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant C, D, F, G, and H
A. In a case where a creditor filed a lawsuit against a beneficiary seeking cancellation of a fraudulent act and restitution of the said fraudulent act on the ground of a debtor’s fraudulent act on the ground of the debtor’s fraudulent act, and the creditor’s claim for restitution of the said fraudulent act was terminated or terminated during the lawsuit, and the creditor’s claim for restitution of the said fraudulent act was returned to the debtor by punishing the debtor, barring any special circumstances, the creditor’s revocation lawsuit already became effective, and thus the benefit in the protection of rights is lost by that lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19558, Jul. 11, 2003). This does not change even if the return of the real estate, which is the objective property, was made in the form of transfer
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da85157 Decided March 27, 2008, etc.). B.
Judgment
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the following facts are acknowledged: ① Defendant C, D, F, G, and H (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant C, etc.") on or around January 15, 2020: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that it was a fraudulent act; and (b) the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4, 7, and 5 as indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 6, 7, and 8 as a result of restoration to the original state on January 16, 2020: (a) the transfer registration of ownership with the termination of the contract on January 16, 2020, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6, 7, and 8 was completed, respectively.
In addition to the above facts of recognition, the real estate listed in the attached list 4 through 8, for which the plaintiff seeks to return to revoke the fraudulent act, has already been returned to K and I's responsible property. However, it is considered that the method of restitution is nothing more than the form of cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, not the form of cancellation of the ownership transfer registration.
On the other hand, in the instant case, each substitute payment contract has been rescinded and has already been terminated.