The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the building under construction, if, in addition to the building under construction, an obligor, who has no particular property, agreed to change the name of the owner in the name of the building in the name of the beneficiary to transfer the above building that is responsible for the property to the beneficiary, the agreement to change the name of the owner that can be deemed to include the above transfer agreement

In full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that C’s agreement on the change of the name of the owner of the instant building concluded with the Defendant, which had no particular property other than the instant building in an incomplete state, was a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, the obligee, and that the presumption of bad faith against the said fraudulent act by the Defendant, the beneficiary,

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraudulent act, presumption of beneficiary's bad faith, and attribution of building ownership.

2. If a creditor’s revocation of a fraudulent act and a claim for restitution are acknowledged with respect to the fourth ground of appeal, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is obligated to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution. If it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser shall be liable to compensate for the equivalent amount of the value of the subject matter of the fraudulent act as a performance of the duty to restore, in which case the return of the subject matter of the fraudulent act is impossible or considerably difficult, it refers to a case where the creditor cannot expect the realization of the performance by the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, not

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da58316, May 15, 1998). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, is the building of this case.