2. B B between the Selection and Defendant LCC:

(a) The sales contract concluded on July 15, 2009 between Defendant LCC and Korea-D (******************) has been cancelled within the limit of KRW 00,00;

(b) to the SelectionB:

1) Defendant LCC shall pay 000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment; and

2) Of Defendant LCC and each of the above 000 won, Defendant LF shall pay KRW 000, Defendant LF shall pay KRW 000, Defendant LF shall pay KRW 000, Defendant LG shall pay KRW 000, and Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay KRW 000.

3. Between Selection H and Defendant LA:

A. On July 15, 2009, the sales contract concluded on July 15, 2009 between Defendant LAD and Korea LAD was revoked within the limit of KRW 00, and

(b) Selection H:

1) Defendant LCC shall pay 000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment; and

2) Of Defendant LCC and each of the above 000 won, Defendant LF shall pay KRW 000, Defendant LF shall pay KRW 000, Defendant LF shall pay KRW 000, Defendant LG shall pay KRW 000, and Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay KRW 000.

4. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s remaining claims against the defendant ChoiCC and the claims against the defendant Shin Han-han Bank are dismissed, respectively.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant New Bank is borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party). Of the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the 1/3 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the remainder, respectively, shall be borne by each of the Defendant LCC, the MF, the ParkF, the leastGG, and Korea.

A. The acquisition of the instant real estate by HanD and the trust of the XX real estate trust

On November 7, 2001, Han-D purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") from O Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "OO Development") and completed the registration of ownership transfer on its own name on March 17, 2005, and takes out 00 won of the real estate of this case from PP mutual savings banks, PP mutual savings banks, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "PP mutual savings banks, etc.") as collateral for the payment of purchase and sale balance, and received 00 won of the real estate of this case as collateral from PP mutual savings banks, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "PP mutual savings banks, etc.") as to the real estate of this case on the same day from March 16, 2005, completed the registration of ownership transfer due to management trust (hereinafter referred to as "the trust contract of this case").

1) On August 24, 2006, Defendant ChoiG received a decision of provisional disposition prohibiting disposal (hereinafter “Defendant ChoiG’s provisional disposition”) by making the right to preserve the instant real estate as the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the revocation of fraudulent act, and the registration of the provisional disposition company was completed on August 28, 2006.

2) On August 6, 2009, Defendant Republic of Korea issued a provisional disposition prohibiting disposal (a provisional disposition by the competent authority, hereinafter referred to as “the provisional disposition by the Republic of Korea”) on the ground that Defendant Republic of Korea has the right to preserve the instant real estate as a right to claim cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to termination of trust contract based on the subrogation right by subrogation right, and the provisional disposition by the Republic of Korea was registered on the same

3) On December 16, 2009, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City made a provisional injunction against disposal (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional injunction") by requiring the right to preserve the real estate in this case as the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of the trust by fraudulent act, and the registration of the provisional injunction company was made on the same day.

C. Revocation of fraudulent act under the trust contract of this case

1) Meanwhile, the YY Co., Ltd., a creditor of DoD (hereinafter “YY”) filed a lawsuit against DoD’s creditor seeking revocation of the instant trust agreement as Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap57171. On March 25, 2009, the above court recognized that the instant trust agreement constituted a fraudulent act, and sentenced that the instant trust agreement should be revoked and the registration of ownership transfer should be revoked, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 15, 2009.

2) The Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is another creditor of KoreaD, filed a lawsuit against the instant trust agreement with the Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap138012, which is also the Seoul Central District Court. On March 2, 2010, the said court also declared that the instant trust agreement, which is a fraudulent act, should be revoked, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 26, 2010.

D. Circumstances leading to the transfer of ownership to Defendant LCC

1) On July 15, 2009, Han-D sold the instant real estate to Defendant LCC for KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

2) On November 2, 2010, Defendant LACC and Defendant Republic of Korea agreed to cancel the registration of provisional injunction on the condition that Defendant LACC pay 00 won of the delinquent tax amount on the MaD’s high-sea duty. Accordingly, the above provisional injunction registration was cancelled on November 23, 2010.

3) On November 5, 2010, Defendant LG released the provisional disposition of Defendant LG on the condition that Defendant LG’s claim for Defendant LGD was accepted by Defendant LG, and on November 24, 2010, the provisional disposition registration was revoked.

4) On June 20, 201, the above Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gahap138012 Decided March 2, 2010, revoked all the registration of seizure and provisional seizure made on the instant real estate after the provisional disposition of Seoul Special Metropolitan City based on the judgment revoking the fraudulent act, and subsequently revoked the registration of ownership transfer in the name of XX real estate trust.

5) On the same day, Han-D completed the transfer registration for ownership transfer on the grounds of the instant sales contract to Defendant LCC.

(e) the insolvency of HanD;

At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, Korea-Japan’s active property was the reason for the instant real estate in excess of the market price of 000 won. On the other hand, as seen below, Korea-Japan’s active property was not the reason for the instant real estate in excess of the market price. However, as seen below, in addition to the Appointed’s loan obligation to the SelectionB, the amount of the loan principal to the Selection, its late payment damages liability to the Selection, its principal and its late payment damages liability to the Selection, its loan obligation to the Selection, its late payment damages liability to the Selection, its late payment damages liability to the Selection, its late payment damages liability to the Selection, its late payment liability to the Selection Mutual Savings Bank, its late payment liability to the Selection Mutual Savings Bank, its late payment liability to the Selection Mutual Savings Bank, its late payment liability amount of KRW 000,000, its delinquent tax on the YU, its delinquent tax amount of KRW 00,000, its delinquent property exceeds the Y00.

F. Details of establishment of collateral security after the instant sales contract

1) On December 8, 2010, Defendant LCC subrogated for the obligation to collateral security to Korea-PP mutual savings banks, etc., and received the transfer of the right to collateral security by PP mutual savings banks, etc. on the same day, established the right to collateral security against the PP mutual savings bank. On June 20, 2011, the registration of the transfer of the right to the instant real estate was completed, and thereafter set the right to collateral security of KRW 000 to the PP mutual savings bank.

2) On September 2, 201, Defendant LCC borrowed KRW 000 from Defendant BB bank (hereinafter “Defendant BB bank”), and repaid the debt of KRW 000,000, which is the remaining loan to PPB bank, to the PPB bank, and subsequently cancelled the registration of the above collateral pledge and the registration of the establishment of the above collateral pledge, Defendant BB bank established the right to collateral security of KRW 00,00 with respect to the instant real estate on the same day.

3) On November 30, 201, Defendant LACC set to Defendant LAE the right to collateral security of KRW 000 with respect to the instant real property, on the same day, the right to collateral security of KRW 000 with the maximum debt amount, and the right to collateral security of KRW 000 with respect to the instant real property against Defendant LAF on December 12, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2, 10, 12, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including each natural disaster case) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the claim portion of the Appointed, among the instant lawsuit, of the claim of this case

ex officio, we examine whether the part of the claim made by the Appointed among the lawsuits in this case is legitimate.

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. This is merely insufficient to recognize the fact that the obligor had conducted a disposal of the property, and further, it is necessary to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know that the obligor had an intent to injure the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da71684, Jan. 13, 201). In particular, barring any special circumstance, the obligor’s act of selling real estate, which is its sole property, and changing the obligor into money easily for consumption, is presumed to have an intent to cause the obligor’s death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420, Apr. 14, 1998). If the obligee was aware of the fact that the obligor disposed of the real estate, the sole property, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the obligor had also known the obligee (see, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the following facts: (a) Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that, at the time of this case’s sale and purchase contract, Defendant 4 had not been executed until 0 days before the date of this case’s agreement; (b) Defendant 1 had been paid the maximum amount of the loan to Defendant 1; and (c) Plaintiff 1 had not been paid the loan to Defendant 2 at the time of this case’s sale and purchase contract; and (d) Plaintiff 1 had not been paid the loan money to Defendant 4 at the time of this case’s sale and purchase contract; and (e) Plaintiff 1 had been paid the maximum amount of the loan money to Defendant 1 at the time of this case’s sale and purchase agreement; and (e) Plaintiff 1 had not been paid the loan money to Defendant 2 at the time of this case’s sale and purchase agreement; and (e) Plaintiff 2 had not been paid the loan money to Defendant 1 at the time of this case’s sale and purchase agreement.

However, it is clear in the record that the instant lawsuit was brought on December 30, 201, which was one year after the lapse of one year from the instant lawsuit. As such, the part of the claim by the Appointed among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was brought against the exclusion period.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) The secured claim by the Claimant B.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, Eul set KRW 24% per annum on December 26, 2005, and changed on June 10, 2008, and it can be recognized that the loan was made on June 12, 2007 with interest rate of KRW 36% per annum, and the due date of payment on December 11, 2007, and each loan was made to Eul. Accordingly, Han bears the duty to pay KRW 000 to the Selection, and this is a preserved claim against the revocation of the fraudulent act of this case.

(2) Selected H’s preserved claim

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 and the oral argument, Han-won entered into a business agreement with Han-si and Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, and paid 00 won investment bond to Han-si. Han-do agreed to return the remaining investment bond after deducting KRW 000 from Han-si depreciation expenses at the expiration of the above business agreement. Since Han-si agreement can be acknowledged that the above business agreement was terminated by the expiration of the period on March 2008, Han-si bears the duty to return KRW 000 of the investment bond to Han-si, and this is the preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case.

(3) Determination as to the assertion by Defendant LCC, Doe E, ParkF, and LCC

The above Defendants asserted that each of the above claims of this BaB and Korea HH are false claims made in collusion with Korea DoD, but the above designated parties, who are persons with a special relationship with Korea DoD, are not sufficient to recognize the above claims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above Defendants' assertion is without merit.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

(1) Whether or not there exists a cause of harm

Unless there are special circumstances, it is presumed that the debtor's intent is presumed to be a fraudulent act, and in this case, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser's bad faith is presumed to have been committed. Thus, unless the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser proves that he/she acted in good faith at the time of the juristic act, the creditor may cancel the juristic act and claim restitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001; 2002Da35669, Sept. 24, 2002).

According to the facts established above, it is reasonable to evaluate that DoD, which was liable for the above debt to Defendant LCC, sold only the exclusive property under excess of its obligation to the SelectionB and Korea H, constitutes a fraudulent act against the SelectionB and Korea H. Furthermore, the intent of DoD’s intent is presumed, and barring any special circumstance, Defendant bB bank, DoE, ParkF, LF, LG, and the bad faith of the Republic of Korea, which are the beneficiary, is also presumed.

As to this, at the time of the instant purchase and sale contract, Defendant LAD claimed to the purport that since the instant real estate was set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 000 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 000,00,000, the total amount of the national taxes imposed on the Seocheon Tax Office, the East-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Tax Office, the registration tax amount of KRW 00, and the local tax amount of KRW 000,000 against the Jungdong-gu Tax Office, it does not constitute a fraudulent act, since the instant real estate was not a property offered as a joint collateral by the general creditor, the instant real estate was not a property offered as a joint collateral by the general creditor.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, Hancheon at the time of the instant sales contract, was liable for tax liability as alleged by the above Defendants, and the real estate in this case was established with a maximum debt amount of 000 won. However, unlike a security right, a tax claim does not have a preferential right to reimbursement for the real estate in this case itself. Thus, unless there is any evidence to prove that the above additional seizure or seizure of the real estate was made prior to the instant sales contract, in determining whether the real estate in this case was provided as a joint security to the general creditors of Hancheon, the above amount of tax liability shall not be deducted from the value of the real estate in this case. However, if the property subject to the mortgage was transferred as a fraudulent act, such fraudulent act shall be established within the scope of the amount calculated by deducting the secured claim amount from the market value of the property in this case, i.e., the amount of the property in this case, within the market value, within the scope of the remaining amount of the secured claim after deducting the secured claim amount from the market value of the above general creditors at the time of this case was offered as the above general creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 20000 million won.

(2) Determination as to Defendant LCC’s bona fide defense

Defendant LCC asserts that this case’s real estate was purchased at a reasonable price from DaD and paid in full the sales amount, and that this case’s sales contract was a bona fide beneficiary who was unaware of the fraudulent act.

In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that DefendantCC was a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, considering the following facts: (a) as to the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract, the ownership transfer registration was made for the trust in terms of the fact that, as to the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract, the maximum amount of KRW 10,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

(3) The reversal of Defendant BB bank's bad faith

In light of the above facts, 200 square meters of real estate owned by Defendant 2, 201 and 200 square meters, Defendant 2 and 2 were loaned from b. The b.C. 3 square meters of the above real estate to b. 3 square meters of the above b. 3 square meters of the above real estate, and the b. 3 square meters of the above b. B. 3 square meters of the above real estate, and the registration of the P.C. 200 square meters of the above real estate was cancelled. The b.C. 3 square meters of the above real estate owned by b. 3 square meters of the above b. 3 square meters of the above real estate, and the b. 3 square meters of the above real estate owned by b. 3 square meters of the above b. 3 square meters of the above real estate, the b. 3rd mortgage bank applied for a general loan to Defendant 2 for the establishment of the 3rd mortgage loan and the above 3rd loan for the above real estate.

(4) Determination as to the bona fide defense of Defendant BaE and ParkF

In order to secure a total amount of 000 won of loans to Defendant L2CC from February 17, 2005 to July 18, 2011, and a total amount of 000 won of goods price claim of a limited-liability company BB alcoholic beverages (hereinafter “BB alcoholic beverages”), Defendant L2F raises a defense that Defendant L2F is a bona fide purchaser who was established a right to collateral security concerning each of the instant real estate in order to secure 000 won of loans to Defendant L2CC. However, the evidence Nos. 16 and 17 cannot be viewed as evidence to prove that the above Defendants had the right to collateral against Defendant L2CC, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise. Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

(5) Determination as to Defendant Choi G’s bona fide defense

In order to secure the obligation of KRW 000,00 which Defendant L2CC acquired from DaD, Defendant L2, on November 30, 201, was a bona fide purchaser who was established a right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 000,00, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, the above Defendant asserted that the instant trust contract was a fraudulent act detrimental to himself/herself in order to preserve the claim against DaD. On August 24, 2006, the provisional disposition was issued against the prohibition of disposal, which was the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of fraudulent act as the preserved right. On November 5, 2010, when the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to Defendant L2CC, Defendant L2CC agreed to obtain the above debt from Defendant L2CC and cancelled the above provisional disposition to cooperate before the above debt payment. Since the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to Defendant L2CC, the above Defendant’s assertion that the above general security contract had not been established for the above general creditor.

(6) Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s bona fide defense

6. On the other hand, the defendant 2: (a) was aware of the fact that the above contract was made for the establishment of the mortgage right by the defendant 1 to 0-1; (b) the defendant 1 to 0-1 to 0-1 to 20-2; (c) the defendant 1 to 0-1 to 0-1 to 20-1 to 20-1 to 20-1 to 30-6 to 20-1 to dispose of the above real estate on the last day of this case; (d) the defendant 2 to 0-1 to 0-1 to 20-1 to 20-1 to 20-1 to 30-6 to 30-6 to 20-6 to 20-1 to dispose of the above real estate; and (e) to 200-1 to 3-1 to 30-6-1 to 30-1 to 2006 to 3-1 to 3-1 to 200-6.

(c) The method of revoking and restoring to original state;

Therefore, the sales contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and Defendant MaximumCC, as a beneficiary, bears the duty to restore as a subsequent purchaser, Defendant BaE, ParkF, MaximumG, and Korea.

In a case where a legal act on a certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act with respect to the method of restitution, in principle, the fraudulent act shall be revoked and ordered to restore the real estate itself, such as cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership. However, in a case where a fraudulent act is committed with respect to a real estate on which a mortgage is established, such fraudulent act shall be established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount from the value of the real estate at which the mortgage is secured. Therefore, in a case where a registration of creation of a mortgage is cancelled due to repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, the cancellation of a fraudulent act and the cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage would result in the restoration of the real estate itself to the extent that it does not constitute a joint security of the general creditors, thereby going against the fairness and fairness, and the order to restore the fraudulent act to the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage (Supreme Court Decision 97Da

As to the instant real estate, on March 17, 2005, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the PPP mutual savings bank, etc. was completed, DD sold the instant real estate to Defendant LCC on July 15, 2009 and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on June 20, 201, and on September 20, 201, it can be recognized that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the PP mutual savings bank, etc. was cancelled due to Defendant LP mutual savings bank’s subrogation on September 2, 201. Thus, the instant sales contract should be revoked within the scope of the balance calculated by deducting the secured debt amount, etc. of the PP mutual savings bank, etc. from the market price at the time of the closing of the argument of the instant real estate, and Defendant LPCC, E, gF, maximumG, and the Republic of Korea

D. Scope of compensation for value

In a case where a part of a fraudulent act is revoked due to cancellation of a right to collateral security and compensation for value is obliged, barring any special circumstance, the revocation and compensation for value shall be limited to the amount of joint collateral holding the object of the fraudulent act, the profits acquired by the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, and the amount of creditor’s preserved claim, whichever is smaller. Therefore, barring any special circumstance,

(1) Joint collateral value of the instant real property

The maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security under the name of PPP mutual savings bank, etc. established at the time of the instant contract was 000 won, and the fact that Defendant LCC had been 000 won at the time of cancelling the registration of creation of the above collateral security on September 2, 201 is as seen earlier. In full view of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 9, the market price as of February 18, 2010 can be acknowledged as 00, and the subsequent market price is confirmed as the same amount. Thus, the joint collateral amount of the instant real estate is 00 won at the market price as of the date of the closing of argument of the instant real estate at 00 won minus the maximum debt amount of the above right to collateral security at 00 won at the time of the closing of argument.

(2) Profits acquired by the Defendants

The profits acquired by Defendant LCC, the ownership of the instant real estate due to the instant sales contract, is KRW 00,00, which is the joint collateral value of the instant real estate. The profits acquired by Defendant LE, ParkF, MaximumGG, and the Republic of Korea with respect to the instant real estate after the instant sales contract, shall be the maximum debt amount of each of the instant secured claims. However, Defendant LE shall be the maximum debt amount of the instant secured claims, Defendant LE, 00 won, Defendant Park FF shall be KRW 00, and Defendant LF shall be KRW 00,000, and Defendant Republic of Korea shall be KRW 00.

(3) The amount of the secured claim by the SelectionB and Han H is the amount of the

The amount of credit of the Selected B is KRW 000, the amount of credit of the Selected H is KRW 000, the amount of credit of the Selected H is as seen earlier.

E. Sub-committee

(1) Determination as to the claims by the Claimant B

If so, the SelectionB and the Defendant LCC, YE, ParkF, GaG, and the Republic of Korea cancel the instant sales contract within the limit of 000 won, and the SelectionB is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from the day following the date when the judgment on revocation of fraudulent act became final to the original state. Defendant LAE, ParkF, LAG, and the Republic of Korea are liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 00 won per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act to the day of full payment. Defendant LAE, ParkF, the LAF, the profits acquired by the above Defendant, and Defendant LAF, the profits acquired by the above Defendant, and Defendant LAF are 00 won claimed by the above Selection, and Defendant LAF, the profits acquired by the above Defendant, and the profits acquired by the above Defendant, which the above Selection would have to pay 00 won per annum as 00 won, respectively.

(2) Determination as to the Appoint’s claim

The instant sales contract is revoked within the limit of 00 won between the Selected and Defendant LAE, ParkF, MaximumGG, and Korea. It is obligated to cancel the instant sales contract within the limit of 000 won, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from the day following the date when the judgment on revocation of fraudulent act is finalized to the original state. Defendant LAE, ParkF, LAG, and Republic of Korea are liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 00 won per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from the day after the date when the judgment on revocation of fraudulent act is finalized to the day when the above judgment is fully paid. Defendant LAE, ParkF, LAG, and Republic of Korea are within the profits acquired by the above Defendant, and Defendant LAF is within the profits acquired by the above Defendant, and Defendant LAF, which is claimed by the above Selection, and Defendant LAG is obligated to pay each of the above Defendant’s profits claimed by the above Defendant.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the claim of the Selection among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and each claim against the Selection, the defendant BaE, ParkF, the lowestG, and the Republic of Korea of this HaH against the Selection, and Korea is accepted in its entirety on the grounds of the above recognition scope, and the claim against the defendant ChoiCC is accepted within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claim against the defendant bB bank against the defendant bB bank is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.