The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

A. (1) The Defendant asserted that the mortgage agreement concluded on January 2, 2018 with respect to the Nam-gu F apartment and G was a fraudulent act and filed a lawsuit with the Busan District Court Branch Decision 2018Gadan115885, and the Plaintiff C paid KRW 62,50,645 to the Defendant as compensation for value, and the Plaintiff C paid KRW 62,50,645 to the Defendant according to the above judgment.

(2) As a creditor who lent money to E, the Plaintiffs sought a payment order claiming payment of KRW 70 million for the Plaintiff A, KRW 30 million for the Plaintiff B, KRW 150 million for the Plaintiff C, and KRW 57,942,00 for the Plaintiff D, and delayed payment for the said payment order. The payment order became final and conclusive as is, because E did not raise any objection against the above payment order.

(3) The plaintiffs and the defendant, as creditors of E, have a system for returning the right of revocation, which is deviating from the debtor's general property, to the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser for all creditors. The defendant's right of revocation is entitled to return the amount claimed in proportion to the amount claimed between the plaintiffs and the defendant's claim amount among the 62,50,645 won which the defendant received from the plaintiff C, as general property, in return for all creditors. The defendant's right of revocation constitutes unjust enrichment and the defendant's right of revocation constitutes unjust enrichment.

B. Determination, the revocation of fraudulent act and restitution are effective for the benefit of all creditors (Article 407 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the revocation obligee does not have preferential right to payment to the obligor with respect to the property recovered from the exercise of obligee's right to revocation, but other creditors may also be paid the amount corresponding to one's claim out of the total amount of claims. However, this is a claim.