2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. Revocation of an accord and satisfaction contract concluded on August 20, 2004 between Defendant Multi-Industrial Development Co., Ltd and Defendant Mine Construction Co., Ltd.

B. Defendant Mine Construction Co., Ltd. shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on August 23, 2004 as the receipt No. 11526, to Defendant Daehan Industrial Development Co., Ltd.

C. The defendant Nancheon District Court's registration office of the Dongcheon District Court and the Chuncheon District Court's registry office of September 23, 2004 will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed by No. 1337.

2. In addition to each establishment registration completed on July 22, 1996 by receipt No. 9592 of receipt on July 22, 1996 and No. 9258 of receipt on June 24, 1998 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the defendant Daehan Industrial Development Co., Ltd. will implement the registration procedure for establishment of a new mortgage on the ground of each additional establishment registration agreement concluded on June 12, 1998. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14487, Jul. 23, 1996; Presidential Decree No. 15325, Mar. 25, 1997; Presidential Decree No

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 2, 4, 5, 6-1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-4 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 1-3), 11-4 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 1-4), 7-1, and 7-1, respectively, are included in the evidence 1-2, 2, 7, 9, 10-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-4 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 1-4), and 7-1, respectively.

A. On April 23, 1996, as a juristic person established for the purpose of housing construction and sale projects (hereinafter referred to as "fire integrated construction"), the Korea Housing Corporation and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") shall enter into a loan agreement with the respective maximum debt amount of 9,750,000,000 and 2,340,000,000,000,000 and 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

On July 23, 1996, the loan amount of the loan under the loan contract date in the table included in the main sentence and the loan amount of the loan No. 6,750,000,000 won on July 23, 2026, July 23, 2026, the National Housing Construction Fund 2,700,000,000 won on March 25, 1997, March 25, 2000, the National Housing Construction Fund 2,700,000 won on March 25, 2000. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1683729-01-000, Oct. 26, 1998>

B. On February 14, 1999, the construction was insolvent due to the aggravation of the financial standing, and the construction was suspended under the status of 87.6%, and the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional injunction against the alteration of the name of the owner against the construction of the Chuncheon District Court Gangnam-gu 9khap104, Gangnam-gu 99khap104, and the said court rendered a provisional injunction on March 22, 1999, stating that the said construction shall not change the name of the owner of the instant business right.

C. On October 29, 199, Nonparty 2, who was appointed as the representative director of the Universal Construction, together with Nonparty 1, from around October 1999, entered into a sales contract with Defendant Daehan Industrial Development Co., Ltd. on July 26, 200 with respect to the instant land, apartment and business rights (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant D&Industrial Development”) with the transfer of the instant land, apartment and business rights, and paid KRW 130,000,000, which was paid in advance, to Nonparty 3 as the repayment of the loans for the Universal Construction. After taking office as the representative director of the Universal General Construction, on November 10, 1999, the sales contract was concluded with Defendant D&Industrial Development Co., Ltd. on the instant land, land and apartment under the following terms and conditions (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”).

(1) The total purchase price shall be KRW 1,00,000; the down payment shall be KRW 100,000; the first intermediate payment shall be KRW 150,000; the second intermediate payment shall be KRW 250,000; the remainder shall be KRW 50,000; the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer shall be issued after the down payment; and the remainder shall be paid in lieu of the completed apartment after the completion of the down payment.

(2) Comprehensive construction shall transfer all the instant project rights to Defendant Multi-Industrial Development, and cooperate in the process of the project operator’s change promptly.

(3) The Plaintiff’s loan obligations and the obligation to Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. related to the instant business are assumed by Defendant DB Industrial Development, and other obligations to the subcontractor incurred from the instant construction are held liable for the comprehensive construction and the representative director’s non-party 2.

(4) The above amount of KRW 130,000,000 paid by Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 3 who acquired the entire shares of the Construction with the repayment of the above loan claim shall be deducted from the purchase price.

D. According to the sales contract of this case on December 1, 200, Defendant DB industry development filed an application for the approval of the change of the project plan from the Si of the Dong Sea City to the Defendant DB industry development. However, on February 27, 2001, Defendant DB industry development received a request from the Si of the East Sea City to supplement documents, such as the written consent to the change of the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff’s business entity, and the written consent to the change of the bonds, debt settlement and disposal obligation related to the instant construction, etc., and submitted the written consent to the change of the project entity on December 26, 2000 (hereinafter “written consent to the change of the project entity”). However, the representative director on the written application for the change of the above change and the written consent to the change of the owner’s name ( Nonparty 2) was different from the representative director on the corporate register at the time of the above application, and received a request to supplement the written approval for the change of the comprehensive development project from the Si of the present project (hereinafter “Defendant DB”).

E. On the other hand, with respect to apartments listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant DB industry development entered into a contract for payment in kind with Defendant Mine General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Mine General Construction”) on August 20, 2004, and on August 23, 2004, Defendant Mine General Construction completed the registration of ownership transfer as described in paragraph 1. B., and on September 22, 2004, Defendant Mine General Construction entered into a mortgage contract with Defendant Ansan General Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Ansan Mutual Savings Bank”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 2,60,000,000 on September 22, 2004, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as described in paragraph 1. C. of the purport of the claim to Defendant Ansan Mutual Savings Bank on September 23, 2004.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Claim for revocation of fraudulent act

As the Plaintiff took over all of the instant projects, which was promoted by UNDD Construction on November 10, 1999, the Plaintiff was liable for the instant loan to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant CBD development merely did not undergo specific procedures to assume debt of the instant loan, and ultimately, Defendant CBD’s acquisition of the instant loan obligations to the Plaintiff at the latest on February 27, 2001, which is the date of approval of the change plan of the instant project, until February 23, 2001. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the instant loan claims against Defendant CB industry development, and ② Defendant CB industry development was in excess of its obligation on August 23, 2004, concluded an apartment payment contract with Defendant DBD Construction on behalf of the Plaintiff, and concluded an apartment payment contract with Defendant DBD Construction Construction Co., Ltd. on behalf of Defendant CBD, and concluded the instant loan agreement with Defendant DBD Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd. on the instant apartment, and concluded the instant loan agreement with Defendant DBD Construction Co., Ltd., as the Plaintiff’s claim for DBD development.

(2) Claim for the creation of additional mortgage

In addition, while entering into each of the instant loans agreements with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Plaintiff with the instant apartment as a collateral immediately after completing the construction of the instant apartment, and the DefendantDana Industrial Development, which acquired the entire instant project that was promoted by the UN General Construction, acquired the aforementioned additional mortgage obligations against the Plaintiff of the UN General Construction. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration of the establishment of a mortgage based on the additional mortgage agreement under each of the instant loans agreement.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion of fraudulent act

(A) In order to exercise the creditor's right of revocation under Article 406 of the Civil Act on the ground that a juristic act of the debtor constitutes a fraudulent act, first of all, the creditor's right to the debtor, i.e., the creditor's right to the preserved claim, and on the other hand, the joint assumption of the obligation which is concluded between the debtor and the underwriter can be viewed as a contract for the third party by having the creditor acquire a new right to the underwriter. In comparison, the performance acceptance agrees to exempt the debtor from the debtor's liability by means of repayment, etc. under the contract between the debtor and the underwriter. It is merely a burden of the debtor's obligation to discharge the debtor in relation to the debtor, and it does not cause the creditor to acquire the debtor's obligation directly. Thus, the standard for determining the third party's obligation acquisition and performance acceptance, which is a contract for the third party, depends on whether the contracting party or the creditor wishes to acquire the claim directly against the contracting party or the underwriter. Specifically, it should be interpreted in light of the motive, circumstance and purpose of the contract conclusion (see, etc.).

(B) In the instant case, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claims against the Defendant C&I by taking over the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff C&I as 0, namely, the existence of the instant loan claims against the Defendant C&I, i.e., the Defendant C&I, and whether the Plaintiff had the instant loan obligations against the Defendant C&I, 8-2, 9, and 10, respectively, and that the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff C&I by taking over the instant loan obligations against the Defendant C&I, 40, 500, 60, 100, 100, 100, 400, 100, 500, 60, 6-1, 8-2, 9, 11-1, 14, 10, 300, 500, 500, 60, 60, 60, and 10,000,00.

(C) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion of revocation of fraudulent act, based on the premise that the Plaintiff had the instant loan claim against Defendant C&A development, is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the assertion of additional collateral security

According to the statement No. 1-2, 3 of the evidence No. 1-2, 1-2, and 3, it is acknowledged that, while entering into a loan agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the construction of the apartment of this case was agreed to provide the plaintiff as a collateral immediately after completion of the construction of the apartment of this case. However, the fact that the comprehensive construction of flexible construction bears the duty to create additional mortgage against the plaintiff is that the construction of flexible construction takes over the obligation to pay the loan of this case to the plaintiff only in relation to the comprehensive construction of flexible construction as above. Thus, there is no evidence to conclude that the development of the defendant C-A has taken over the above additional mortgage obligation against the plaintiff of the comprehensive construction of flexible construction. Thus, the plaintiff's additional mortgage claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Attachment List omitted】

Judges Lee Jong-man (Presiding Judge)