사해행위취소소송에 있어 가액배상판결과 채권자 평등의 문제

Under the right to revocation of fraudulent act, it could be revoked a debtor’s action to decrease its’ chargeable properties with knowledge that the action would harm creditors. By doing so, the debtor’s deviated properties are reverted to the creditors. This right has been established to preserve a debtor’s chargeable properties ‘for all relevant creditors. but According to the relative effect view, a common view precedent regarding the revocation of fraudulent act and restoration to an original condition, an each revoked creditor’s credit satisfaction should be realized equally ‘for all creditors’ under Civil Law Article 407. However, Civil Law 407 just prescribes equality, without regulating distribution procedures, periods and enforcement means. Hence, in case of monetary compensation judgment, there have been issues with Civil Law Article 407 declaring creditor equality. First, the setoff view, the precedent about the ways and basis revoked creditors’ credits will be satisfied as money received, allows preferential payment of revoked creditors. Second, the arbitrary view is about the precedent regarding general creditors’ right for monetary compensation distribution claim against revoked creditors, dividend participation, separate lawsuits and beneficiaries’ claim for pro rata amount distribution. These precedents directly violate Civil Law Article 407 prescribing creditor equality. Therefore, this paper has introduced and agreed on enforcement deposit view as a solution regarding an issue of Korea’s revocation of fraudulent act. Under the enforcement deposit view, the problems that assigned creditors take over the whole credits and conventional debtors do not receive or hide equivalent value could be resolved. This could be practicable only by change of judicial precedents.