수 개의 가액배상판결이 내려진 경우의 법률관계 - 대법원 2022. 8. 11. 선고 2018다202774 판결에 대한 평석 -

Abstract

Since the obligee’s right of revocation is a one’s own right granted individually by each creditor, multiple lawsuits may proceed simultaneously or at the same time, and as a result, several fraudulent act revocation and restoration judgments may be made overlapping. And in cases where restoration is made by way of monetary compensation, the court pronounces several rulings ordering compensation of the entire value within the scope of each obligee’s bond. In this case, the total amount of value monetary compensation will exceed the profits that the beneficiary obtained through the fraudulent act. If execution is allowed for all of the executor, the beneficiary shall be liable for compensation exceeding the amount of profit obtained through the fraudulent act. In this regard, The Supreme Court has declared that beneficiary can avoid the risk of double payment by filing a claim objection lawsuit, and in the verdict we will analyze below, it sets out specific criteria for this. That is 『if the beneficiary ends up bearing the liability for value compensation that exceeds the profits as a result of execution, double payment is made. And if the profits evaluated by multiple judgments for value is different, the highest value is used as the standard. If execution exceeding this amount is made, it is double payment.』 In order to determine whether the conclusion of the judgment is justified, it is necessary to determine what grounds exist for claiming exclusion of execution by asserting that the beneficiary has fulfilled his obligation to compensate other creditors. Regarding the grounds for objection to the claim filed by the beneficiary, there is a view that the executive power is also extinguished by the beneficiary fulfilling his liability for compensation to other cancellation creditors. There is a divided view that forcing a beneficiary to accept execution exceeding the scope of profits obtained through fraudulent acts is unfair execution that goes against good faith and therefore should not be permitted. Based on the legal nature of the right to revoke a fraudulent act, in this case, it is appropriate to understand the reasons for the objection according to the latter's opinion. And based on this view, the conclusion of the judgment that enforcement power can be excluded only for execution exceeding the ‘largest recognized value’ can be considered justified.