2. A. The payment contract concluded on April 5, 2007 between Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty of the judgment) is revoked.

B. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the Seoul Western District Court No. 16881, April 10, 2007.

3. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2 and the conjunctive claim against the defendant 2 added in the trial are all dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation cost, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 is assessed against Defendant 1, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 is assessed against the Plaintiff, respectively.

(a) Title trust agreement and successful bid of the instant real estate;

(1) Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 1”) entered into a title trust agreement with the above Defendant on the condition that he will acquire the instant real estate and complete the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant 2’s name (hereinafter “title trust”), and on September 16, 2004, the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court 2003tata 13150,000, participated in the bid under Defendant 2, which was held with respect to the instant real estate, and was awarded the instant real estate in KRW 156,80,000. Of the successful bid price, KRW 56,80,000, out of the successful bid price, paid KRW 100,000,000 from the new bank under Defendant 2’s name.

(2) On September 16, 2004, Defendant 2 completed the registration of creation of the ownership on the ground of sale by voluntary auction on the same day under Article 42593 of the Seoul Western District Court’s receipt on the instant real estate (hereinafter “the registration of creation of the ownership”). On the same day, Defendant 2 completed the registration of creation of the ownership on the ground of Defendant 2, the mortgagee, the new bank holding the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of KRW 120 million as the debtor 2, the new bank holding the right to collateral security, and the maximum debt amount.

(b) Preparation of a sales contract and registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 1;

(1) On December 10, 2004, Defendant 2 issued to Nonparty 1 a registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership on the instant real estate acquired through the title trust in the above auction procedure. The grounds for registration include “the reservation made on December 3, 2004” as the grounds for registration. According to the instant title trust, Defendant 2 issued to Nonparty 1 all necessary documents for the registration of transfer of ownership, including the power of delegation and certificate of seal impression, with the contents of delegation of disposal authority to Nonparty 1 according to the instant title trust.

(2) On April 5, 2007, Nonparty 1, who represented by Defendant 2, drafted a sales contract with the content that the seller sets forth KRW 180 million in the purchase price as the seller, Defendant 1, and the purchaser. The contents of the special agreement include the following:

1. A seller shall cancel a provisional registration (non-party 1, a right).

2. The purchaser shall take over the amount of loan of a new bank at a new bank's point where the owner becomes the debtor.

3. The buyer shall purchase by payment in lieu of the loan certificate issued by Nonparty 2.

(3) Since then, Defendant 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate by the Seoul Western District Court No. 16881 on April 10, 2007 (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership transfer”), Defendant 1 as the cause of registration. On the same day, Defendant 1’s registration of ownership transfer claim under Nonparty 1’s above (1) was cancelled on the ground that “the cancellation on April 5, 2007” was “the cancellation on April 5, 2007.”

C. The occurrence of national tax claims against Nonparty 1

Non-party 1 was registered as representative director in the form of the above company as a 1st shareholder holding 50% of the shares of the Si-Pacific Social Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Si-Pacific Social”). Non-party 1 was subject to tax investigation from February 26, 2007 to April 9, 2007 on the ground that the Si-Pacific Social from 2002 to 2006 did not pay the corporate tax reverted to the Plaintiff. After being notified that Non-party 1 paid KRW 345,467,420 as the second taxpayer of the Si-Pacific Social Co., Ltd. around July 12, 2007, the additional and increased additional taxes were paid to the Plaintiff as of September 1, 209, the additional and increased additional taxes were paid to Non-party 1, as of September 26, 2009.

(d) Results of the relevant case;

(1) In around 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants against the Incheon District Court for the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment (case number 2007 Gohap6481, hereinafter “the claim”), and the purport of the claim was “(1) cancellation of the sales contract concluded on April 5, 2007 between the Defendants with respect to the real property of this case, and ② execution of the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on April 10, 2007 by the Seoul Western District Court No. 16881, the Seoul Western District Court No. 16881, and ③ Defendant 2 by subrogation of Nonparty 1 was paid to the Plaintiff 151,627,693 won and damages for delay.”

(2) On July 11, 2008, the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on July 11, 2008 against the Plaintiff on the ground that the owner of the instant real estate is the Defendant 2. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant 1 cannot be deemed as the responsible property. ② Defendant 2, as the title trustee of Nonparty 1, is obligated to return the purchase price of KRW 56.8 million received from the Defendant 1 as unjust enrichment. However, Defendant 2 transferred the ownership of the instant real estate to Defendant 1 in accordance with Nonparty 1’s order and made a substitute payment in lieu of the performance of the above obligation to return unjust enrichment, the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against Defendant 2 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2007Ga6481), but the appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na7491, Dec. 19, 2008) did not claim a compromise between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, 11 through 13, Eul's statements and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Legal relations of the parties

A. Key issue

In order to determine whether the Plaintiff could properly recognize the process and legal relationship that the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred from Defendant 2 to Defendant 1, it can be determined as to whether the said legal relationship was identical to the subject matter of a lawsuit determined in the previous suit. As can be seen, first of all, whether there was any legal relationship as to the instant real estate between Nonparty 1, Defendant 1, and 2.

B. Determination

(1) Legal relations between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 2

First, according to the above facts, the title trust of this case between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 2, which was entered into with respect to the instant real estate, is null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Nonparty 1, the title truster, was unable to acquire the ownership of the instant real estate from the beginning of the beginning. Therefore, Nonparty 1, due to the invalidity of the above title trust agreement, suffered damages equivalent to the purchase price provided to Defendant 2. Thus, Defendant 2, among the bid price of this case of KRW 156,80,000, was liable to return KRW 56,800,000, which was provided by Nonparty 1.

Next, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 entered into an agreement to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the first substitute payment agreement”) in order to repay the Plaintiff’s obligation to be borne upon the instant title trust on April 5, 2007 (the obligation to be registered on the basis of the provisional registration of December 10, 2004, which was completed by Defendant 2 to Nonparty 1, or the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 56.8 million as the instant title trust becomes null and void) and issued documents and power of attorney necessary for the registration of the ownership transfer of the instant real estate to Nonparty 1.

Although Defendant 1 asserts that there is no first accord and satisfaction contract, it is reasonable to view that there was an implied accord and satisfaction contract between Defendant 2 and Nonparty 1, inasmuch as Defendant 2 delivered various documents to Nonparty 1 in order to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to Nonparty 1 on April 5, 2007 with the intent to escape other obligations to be borne by Nonparty 1 according to the instant title trust.

(2) Legal relations between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 and 8 (including additional numbers), although the non-party 1, his husband, sold the real estate owned by the defendant 1 to a third party and returned the purchase price of KRW 170 million to the third party, the non-party 2, who agreed with the above non-party 2 to pay the debt of KRW 170 million incurred as a result of his arbitrary use of the real estate, and delivered the loan certificate to the defendant 1 on March 17, 2007. The non-party 1, despite the above money, failed to pay the above money to the defendant 1 on April 5, 2007, it can be acknowledged that the payment contract was concluded in lieu of the payment, to transfer the ownership of the real estate of this case to the defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the second payment contract in lieu of the payment in kind"). In the process of performing the payment in kind contract, the non-party 2, the seller prepared the sale price of the real estate as stipulated in the above paragraph 18 billion won.

According to the above facts, the non-party 1 entered into a second accord and satisfaction contract in which the ownership of the real estate of this case is transferred in lieu of the repayment of the agreed debt to the defendant 1. For the execution of the second accord and satisfaction contract, the non-party 1 entered into a second accord and satisfaction contract in which the ownership of the real estate of this case is transferred in his name pursuant to the first accord and satisfaction contract and completed the principal registration of ownership transfer from the defendant 2 to the defendant 1, and based on this, the process of transferring the ownership is reduced and omitted, and

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The parties' assertion

Defendant 1, in relation to a prior suit, completed the registration of provisional disposition against disposal of the instant real estate on November 14, 2007, and thereafter filed a prior suit. Defendant 1 asserted that the instant suit was unlawful as it was filed after the limitation period of the lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act was expired, on the ground that, at the time the registration of provisional disposition was completed, Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 knew that there was a fraudulent act between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 at the time the registration of provisional disposition was completed.

As to this, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that Nonparty 1 transferred the real estate of this case to Defendant 1 through the result of the first instance trial, and that only after July 11, 2008, the judgment of the previous suit was rendered, the Plaintiff became aware of the said fraudulent act, and that the Plaintiff followed the limitation period, since it filed the instant lawsuit on March 31, 2009, which was before the lapse of one year thereafter.

B. Determination

Therefore, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 10, it is recognized that the plaintiff applied for a provisional injunction against the disposal of real estate of this case on Nov. 14, 2007 (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Kadan6027, Busan District Court Decision 2007Kadan6027).

However, in the exercise of the right of revocation, the date when the creditor, the initial date of the exclusion period, becomes aware of the fact that the debtor performed the act of disposal of the property is insufficient. The existence of a specific fraudulent act and the debtor's intention to harm is known. According to the evidence No. 10, in applying for the order of prohibition of disposal of real estate as to the real estate owned by the defendant No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff submitted the application stating "the defendant No. 2 made a registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase of the real estate," and "the transfer of the real estate owned by the defendant No. 2 to the respondent No. 1, the only property of the defendant No. 2, infringes on the applicant's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment by subrogation." The purport of the previous lawsuit is also specified as a legal act to be revoked as a fraudulent act on April 5, 2007 between the defendants, and the plaintiff asserted the facts that the sale contract was revoked on April 5, 2007 between the defendants.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff did not enter into a sales contract between the defendants at the time of the application for provisional disposition of prohibition of the above real estate disposal and until the judgment on the lawsuit was rendered, but the fact that the contract was not concluded between defendant 1 and the non-party 1 and that the registration of the transfer of the ownership of this case was completed due to the execution of the contract. It is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was aware that the second payment contract of this case was made after July 11, 2008 when the judgment of the court of first instance sentenced. Thus, as to the second payment contract of this case subject to revocation of the fraudulent act of this case, it should be deemed that the plaintiff was unaware of the existence of specific fraudulent act and the existence of the intention of the non-party 1's intention to injure.

Therefore, as long as the record clearly shows that the lawsuit in this case was filed before the lapse of one year from July 11, 2008 from July 11, 2008, the defendant's main defense to the safety is without merit.

4. Whether a decision to recommend a compromise conflicts with res judicata.

A. The parties' assertion

Defendant 1 asserted that the lawsuit in this case conflicts with the res judicata of the decision to recommend reconciliation in the previous suit, etc. In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that ① in the case of the part of the claim for revocation of fraudulent act against the defendants, the legal act subject to revocation of fraudulent act as the subject matter of the previous suit is "a sales contract between the defendant 2 and the defendant 1 on April 5, 2007", and the legal act subject to revocation of fraudulent act as the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is different as the first payment contract and the second payment contract, and the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case differs. ② In the case of the claim for revocation of unjust enrichment against the defendant 2, it does not conflict with the res judicata because the legal relation was changed following the claim for revocation of the previous suit.

B. Determination

The decision of recommending a compromise has the same effect as that of a judicial compromise in the absence of an objection within the prescribed period, and the judicial compromise takes effect as that of a final and conclusive judgment, and if necessary for the recommendation of compromise, it may include rights or legal relations other than a subject matter of lawsuit. In such cases, the decision of recommending a compromise shall have the effect on the parties indicated in the decision in accordance with its contents. On the other hand, if a compromise has the effect of creation, the relationship of rights and obligations based on the previous legal relations is extinguished, and at the same time a new legal relationship arising from the judicial compromise is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da4280, Feb. 1, 2008).

Therefore, the subject matter of a lawsuit in this case is a contract for payment in kind with No. 1 and No. 2 of April 5, 2007 (hereinafter “each of the subject matter of a lawsuit in this case”) as seen earlier, and the subject matter of a lawsuit in the previous lawsuit is a contract between the Defendants on April 5, 2007, and the subject matter of a lawsuit is a contract between the Defendants on April 5, 2007, and the subject matter of a lawsuit is different from the subject matter of a lawsuit in this case, and the subject matter of

Furthermore, with regard to whether the legal relationship seeking the revocation of the fraudulent act of this case constitutes the rights or legal relations included in the scope of the Seoul High Court’s decision on the recommendation for settlement as of December 19, 2008, the issue is whether not only the sales contract concluded between Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 but also each contract for payment in kind concluded between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 2, and Defendant 1 may be deemed to have been renounced en bloc. This also differs from the legal relationship subject to the revocation of the fraudulent act. In light of the above, as long as the plaintiff continuously asserted on the premise that the payment in kind between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 was at issue, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff renounced all rights including the legal relationship related to the payment in kind contract between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1, as long as each of the contracts of this case was included in the issues as the basis of the decision on the recommendation for settlement in kind, it cannot be deemed that each of the contracts of this case was included in the decision on the recommendation for settlement in kind.

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the claim against Defendant 1 does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the decision of recommending a compromise in the prior suit.

5. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 2

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) Defendant 2, as a contractual title trust, bears the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price against Nonparty 1; and (b) Defendant 2, in collusion with Nonparty 1 for the purpose of repaying the obligation to Nonparty 1, a certain creditor, agreed to pay in kind the instant real estate; (c) seek to cancel the said payment contract by fraudulent act; and (d) seek to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price in subrogation of Nonparty 1, a primary debtor, to the Plaintiff; and (c) seek, as a preliminary restitution following the revocation of the fraudulent act mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, reimbursement of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price as compensation.

B. Judgment on the main claim

The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate as a trustee under contract title trust against Defendant 2 in the prior suit, thereby unjust enrichment of an amount equivalent to KRW 151,627,693 (the actual successful bid price is KRW 156,80,000). Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought to return it to the Plaintiff subrogated by Nonparty 1. However, Defendant 2, on April 5, 2007, deemed that the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to Defendant 1 in accord with the order of Nonparty 1, the title truster, as a substitute for the performance of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, and thus, the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim was revoked. The Plaintiff appealed from the appeal against Defendant 2, and thereafter, the first instance judgment against Defendant 2 became final and conclusive as above.

In light of the above facts acknowledged, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant 2 is included in the claim for payment of KRW 151,627,693, which was sought at the previous suit, and it is against the final judgment of the previous suit and is against the res judicata effect.

The plaintiff asserts that the part concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant 2 among the lawsuit in this case is prepared for the case where the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case is accepted, which constitutes a change in circumstances arising from the exercise of new formation right after the closing of argument in the previous suit and thus does not conflict

However, as seen below, since the first payment contract between Defendant 2 and Nonparty 1 on April 5, 2007 between Defendant 2 and Nonparty 1 was not subject to revocation of a fraudulent act, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of a fraudulent act is without merit. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the defendant 2 is without merit.

C. Determination on revocation of fraudulent act and Plaintiff’s ancillary claim

Next, the Plaintiff’s act of entering into a substitute payment contract with Nonparty 1 to extinguish the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant 2 and to acquire ownership of the instant real estate by transfer constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of reducing Nonparty 1’s liability property, which is a specific creditor, and Defendant 2 obtained benefits by itself from the act of making it possible to perform other benefits instead of the original payment, such as monetary payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the above substitute payment contract, and sought restitution to Defendant 2, the beneficiary due to the fraudulent act.

On the other hand, a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act is subject to a legal act that reduces a debtor's general property while being aware that it would prejudice the creditor. In principle, an act of repayment, etc. based on the principal place of debt is not subject to revocation of a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances. However, in a case where the debtor's property is insufficient to repay the whole debt, if the debtor provided the only property to a certain creditor as payment in kind and transferred it to another creditor, then the creditor obtains satisfaction of the claim prior to other creditors, while the joint security is reduced within the scope, if the debtor is placed in a more unfavorable position than the previous creditor, such act may be subject to revocation of a fraudulent act.

In this case, in principle, Nonparty 1’s right to claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price against Defendant 2 is a right derived from the fact that Nonparty 1’s right to claim for the transfer of ownership, which he had intended to exercise against Defendant 2 based on the title trust of this case, is not recognized under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and thus, it is difficult to regard the first payment contract in lieu of the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above purchase price as an act of reducing the liability’s property as an act detrimental to the interests of the general creditors against Nonparty 1 as the obligor would have been originally anticipated by Nonparty 1 to transfer the ownership of the real estate of this case. This is more true even if Nonparty 1 considered that the amount of the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment which he could have exercised against Defendant 2 would amount to at least 156,800,000 won, the successful bid price

Therefore, the first payment contract of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, and Defendant 2 cannot be viewed as a beneficiary of a fraudulent act. Thus, the part seeking the cancellation of the first payment contract of this case and the part claiming compensation for the value based on it cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against Defendant 2 against the defendant 2 is without merit.

6. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s act of repaying the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate to a specific creditor in lieu of the Plaintiff is a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor against Nonparty 1, including the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the second payment contract between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1, and sought restitution therefrom.

B. Determination as to the revocation of fraudulent act

(1) Occurrence of preserved claims

In principle, it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, it is highly probable at the time of a fraudulent act that the legal relationship, which serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim, has already occurred at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the establishment of a claim is likely to be based on such legal relationship in the near future, and where a claim has been established in the near future because the probability thereof has been realized, such claim may also become a preserved claim, and the legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim shall not be limited to the legal relationship between the parties, but shall be deemed to include the quasi-legal relationship, fact-finding, etc. with the probability of the establishment of the claim (see, e

If corporate tax, which Nonparty 1 bears against the Plaintiff, is a national tax paid after a voluntary declaration, and the time when the corporate tax was established when the society was in arrears, as seen earlier, the date of establishing the corporate tax, which was the date of concluding the payment contract in kind, from April 5, 2007 to April 2006, the date of concluding the payment in kind, which was the date of the second payment in kind, is the national tax that was incurred from April 5, 2007 to April 5, 2006, and there was a high probability that the national tax claim may occur. In fact, since the notice of designation of the second tax liability was given, it is reasonable to view that the

(2) Determination as to Nonparty 1’s insolvent

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 9-1, the non-party 1 was the land at the time of April 5, 2007, where the non-party 1 was the Incheon-gun's Dolle (number 1 omitted), and where the plaintiff 1 was the Dolle (number 2 omitted). However, according to the evidence No. 9-2 through No. 4, the above land at the time of the non-party 1 was the successful bid for KRW 21,00,000 on November 22, 2007; the non-party 127,952,617, and the non-party 3 was the non-party 189,945,65,57, Sept. 5, 2005, and the non-party 1 was the non-party 200,000 won and the non-party 1 was the non-party 1,506,000 won.

(3) Fraudulent act

If the obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, and the obligor provided the obligee’s sole property to a certain obligee as payment in kind, if the obligee obtains satisfaction of the obligee’s claim prior to any other obligee, while the obligee is in a more unfavorable position than the previous obligee as the joint security has decreased within the scope, it should be deemed that the obligee’s interest would be prejudicial to the other obligee’s interest. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the obligor’s act of providing one of the obligees’s sole creditors with payment in kind constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the other obligees (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7873, Nov. 10, 2005, etc.).

In the instant case, as seen earlier, Nonparty 1 transferred his right to claim ownership transfer registration against Defendant 2 to Nonparty 1. In this case, even if Defendant 1 acquired the right to claim ownership transfer registration for payment in lieu of the above agreed amount claim, it appears that Nonparty 1 was able to have known that Nonparty 1 had been in excess of the debt amount of Nonparty 1, in light of the following facts: (i) Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 were friendly, and were in collusion with Defendant 200 million won in the instant case where the ownership transfer registration was concluded on April 5, 2007 and Defendant 1, and (ii) Nonparty 1 was in collusion with Defendant 1, which was in excess of the market price of Defendant 200 million won in light of the fact that the ownership transfer registration was concluded on April 10 and April 10, 2007 with Defendant 1, it appears that Nonparty 200 million won in total, and (iii) Nonparty 1 was in collusion with Defendant 200 billion won in the instant case where the ownership transfer registration was executed.

Therefore, the second payment contract concluded between the non-party 1 and the defendant 1 shall be deemed as a fraudulent act, and the defendant 1's bad faith as a beneficiary shall be presumed as also.

(4) Private will

Next, the defendant 1 asserts that he is a bona fide beneficiary.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that he/she was the fraudulent act. In such a case, when recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, it should be based on objective and acceptable evidence, etc., and it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act only on the part of the debtor's unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party's explanation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006, etc.).

According to the evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, 10-1, 2, 11, 12-1, 12-2, and 12-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, 10-2, Defendant 1 paid part of the interest and principal of the loans to the new bank, a stock company of Defendant 2, as seen earlier.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the above evidence Nos. 13, 15, 17, and 18 among the Defendants, the following facts are revealed: (a) despite the fact that Defendant 1, the purchaser of the sale contract, entered into an agreement on April 5, 2007, still became Defendant 2; (b) KRW 850,000, which was paid on April 30, 2008, and KRW 10,000,000, which was paid on May 30, 2008, was paid under Defendant 2 under the name of Defendant 1; and (c) despite the fact that Nonparty 1’s debt owed to Defendant 1, the sale price was set at KRW 187,00,000,000, which was set at KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 won, it was readily recognized that Defendant 1 and Nonparty 2 were liable for the debt owed to Defendant 18.

Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the presumption of bad faith, and it cannot be recognized that the defendant 1 had acted in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act. Thus, this part of the defendant 1's assertion is without merit.

(5) Determination on violation of the good faith principle

Defendant 1 asserts that the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff in violation of the principle of good faith, even though the Plaintiff agreed to waive all the rights to the instant real estate in accordance with the decision of recommending reconciliation.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant 1 does not conflict with the principle of good faith, and as such, Defendant 1’s assertion on this part is without merit, since there are no other circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant 1 violates the principle of good faith.

(6) Sub-committee

Therefore, the second payment contract concluded between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 on April 5, 2007 is a fraudulent act. The plaintiff can exercise the right of revocation against Defendant 1, the beneficiary, and seek restitution.

7. Methods of reinstatement following the revocation of fraudulent act;

If a creditor’s revocation of a fraudulent act and a claim for restitution are acknowledged, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is obligated to return the object of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution, and where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original object, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is obligated to compensate for the value equivalent to the value of the object of the fraudulent act as a performance of the duty to reinstate. In this case, unless there are special circumstances to deem that it is impossible or considerably difficult to restore the original object, the restoration should be made in the state before the

In this case, as seen earlier, the transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 and the transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 for the implementation of the payment contract in substitutes 2 and the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant 1 was immediately transferred from the defendant 2 to the defendant 1. As long as the second payment contract in substitutes 2, which served as the ground for the transfer of ownership, is revoked by fraudulent act, the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant 1 completed under the contract, and the ownership of the real estate in this case is restored to the plaintiff 2, thereby restoring the ownership of the real estate

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the Seoul Western District Court No. 16881, April 10, 2007, as to the instant real estate, to the Plaintiff.

8. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is justified, and the main claim against the defendant 2 and the ancillary claim added in the trial for the defendant 2 are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 1, and since the part against the defendant 2 is just with this conclusion, the part against the defendant 2 is just. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2 and the conjunctive claim added in the trial for the defendant 2 are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-hun