사해행위취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “No. 5, 201”; “No. 25, 2011. 5”; “No. 12, 2012. 12. 10”; and “No. 5, 2012. 10. 10”; and “No. 12, 2012. 10. 10, 201. 7. 10”; and “No. 15, 2012.” The Defendant’s argument at the trial is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph 2; therefore, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence
2. Additional determination
A. At the time of the Defendant’s assertion that the instant real estate was purchased from the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) completed the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor B, F, the maximum debt amount of KRW 25 million; and (b) the debtor B, the creditor joint agreement; and (c) the maximum debt amount of KRW 20 million; (b) after the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from B, the Defendant took over KRW 14 million as the secured debt of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage under the name of F; and (c) paid KRW 23.5 million as the purchase price of the instant real estate to B, and thus, paid KRW 62.5 million in total among the sales price of the instant real estate (=25 million in total).
Therefore, even if the sale and purchase of the instant real estate is revoked as a fraudulent act, the method of restitution shall be based on the value compensation. The scope of compensatory damages shall be limited to the portion of KRW 7.5 million, excluding the Plaintiff’s lawful payment of the purchase price (=70 million -62.5 million ), which is the remainder of KRW 7.5 million (=7 million -62.5 million).
B. As a matter of principle, restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act ought to be based on the return of the subject matter itself, and exceptional compensation should be based only on the case where it is impossible or considerably difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 198 May 15, 1998).