2. On the three pages of the first instance judgment in the same part, the first instance judgment follows up to 4 pages 1 from “at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit” to 4 pages 1.

At the time of the closing of argument in this Court, the Plaintiff remains at C at the rate of 20% per annum from April 8, 2008 to August 2014, 2014 - 327,100,004 won [26,520,046 won per annum from August 21, 2014 to September 5, 2017 - the Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages of KRW 110,396,249 won from April 8, 2008 to August 20, 2014 - the rate of 416,895,671 won per annum 260,71,874 won as dividends) 327,10,000 won per annum from August 21, 2014 to September 5, 2017.]

“A. When a creditor holding a preserved claim exercises his/her right of revocation, the creditor’s claim amount includes the interest or delay damages incurred at the time of the conclusion of the trial proceedings after the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42711, Oct. 25, 2002). At the time of the conclusion of the arguments in the court as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim against C is the preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act. The claim of KRW 792,927,004 against the Plaintiff is the preserved claim at the time of the conclusion of the arguments in the court of first instance. The claim of KRW 792,927,00,000 against the Plaintiff is the preserved claim.

D. If the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage made by the method of revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution to the original state continues to exist until the closing of argument in the lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act, such restitution should be made by the method of cancelling the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the separate mortgage established by the method of fraudulent act was cancelled after the fraudulent act.