[2] The scope of revocation of a fraudulent act and the method of restitution where the registration of establishment of a mortgage was cancelled after a fraudulent act was committed on an immovable on which a mortgage was established

[2] In a case where a legal act on real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, cancellation of the fraudulent act and cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, etc. However, in a case where a fraudulent act was committed with respect to 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 of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. Thus, in a case where a registration of creation of mortgage was cancelled due to repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, ordering cancellation of a fraudulent act and restoration of the real estate itself to the extent that the portion which was not the joint security of the general creditors would result in a violation of fairness and fairness. Thus, an order to cancel a fraudulent act and order restoration of the real estate itself would only be issued within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. Such

1. On the first ground for appeal

원심 및 원심이 인용한 제1심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 원심 공동피고 1이 1992. 1. 27. 소외 1이 운영하는 주식회사 봉암건설 및 소외 2와 사이에 원심 공동피고 1 소유의 서울 영등포구 (주소 생략) 소재 대지에 지하 3층, 지상 8층 건물을 신축하기로 하는 공사도급계약을 체결함에 있어, 공사기간은 1992. 1. 27.부터 1993. 5. 30.까지로 하고, 공사대금은 5,180,000,000원으로 하되 이는 위 부동산을 담보로 제공하여 융자받을 은행대출금과 완공 후 임대분양을 하여 받을 임대보증금으로 충당하며, 임대분양은 수급인들의 책임 아래 행하나 만일 임대분양의 부진으로 공사대금이 모자라도 공사를 중단함이 없이 계속하여 준공하기로 특약한 사실, 소외 1은 1992. 3. 5.경 착공하여 같은 해 11.경 골조공사를 마무리하고 1993. 6.경 임대분양을 시작하였으나 예상 외의 분양 부진으로 공사비가 부족하게 되자, 원심 공동피고 1과 함께, 공동수급인인 소외 2에게 자금융통을 부탁하여 그의 아들인 소외 3이 발행한 액면 합계 금 23억여 원 상당의 약속어음 여러 매를 교부받은 다음, 그 어음에 원심 공동피고 1로부터 직접 배서를 받거나 그의 승낙 아래 원심 공동피고 1 명의로 배서한 후 이를 할인한 금원 또는 그 어음 자체를 위 공사의 하청업자들에게 공사대금조로 지급해 왔는데, 1993. 12. 11. 위 약속어음들은 소외 3이 자금 여력이 없는 데다가 소외 1 및 원심 공동피고 1도 결제대금을 소외 3에게 제 때에 지급하지 못함으로써 결국 부도처리된 사실, 한편 소외 2는 그 사이 위 약속어음들의 부도를 막기 위하여 위 부도 직전까지 소외 3의 처남인 원고 1로부터 금 514,000,000원을, 자기 딸인 원고 2로부터 금 340,000,000원을 각 차용하여 액면 합계 금 854,000,000원 상당의 약속어음들을 결제하였는데, 원고들로부터 그 변제에 대한 담보를 요구받고, 원심 공동피고 1에게 이와 같은 사정을 말하고 소외 3이 발행한 액면 금 330,000,000원, 액면 금 184,000,000원 및 액면 금 340,000,000원인 약속어음 3매에 원심 공동피고 1의 배서를 각 받아 그 중 액면 금 330,000,000원 및 액면 금 184,000,000원인 약속어음 2매를 원고 1에게, 액면 금 340,000,000원인 약속어음 1매를 원고 2에게 각 교부하였으나, 위 어음들 역시 다른 어음들과 마찬가지로 그 무렵 부도처리되자, 원고들은 원심 공동피고 1에 대한 위 약속어음금 채권 합계 금 854,000,000원을 피보전권리로 하여 서울지방법원 남부지원 93카단10742호로 부동산가압류 신청을 하여 1993. 12. 27.자 가압류 결정에 따라 위 대지에 가압류등기가 마쳐진 사실, 원심 공동피고 1은 원고들의 위 가압류로 인하여 신축중인 건물에 대한 임대분양이 더욱 어려워지자 1994. 6. 3. 원고들에게 위 채무의 지급을 담보하는 의미에서 위 건물 중 3, 4층을 임대보증금 738,000,000원(그 중 금 328,000,000원은 원고 1, 금 340,000,000원은 원고 2, 나머지는 소외 4의 각 몫으로 하였고, 그 무렵 소외 2가 소외 1로부터 금 186,000,000원을 받아 원고 1에게 원심 공동피고 1에 대한 위 채권의 일부로 지급함으로써 원고 1의 몫이 줄어들었다.), 임대차기간 준공일로부터 24월로 하여 임대한다는 내용의 임대차계약서 및 위 임대 부분이 제3자에게 분양되는 경우에는 그로부터 받은 임대보증금을 원고들에게 먼저 지급하고서 제3자의 입주를 허용하기로 하며, 건물 준공 후 융자를 받게 되면 재임대와 관계없이 융자금에서 우선 위 채무를 변제한다는 내용의 이행각서를 각 작성하여 주고, 이에 대하여 원고들은 그 무렵 위 가압류를 해제하였으며, 한편 위 신축건물에 관하여 1994. 12. 8. 원심 공동피고 1 명의의 소유권보존등기가 대위로 경료되었고 위 건물은 1996. 초경 완공된 사실을 각 인정한 다음, 그 인정 사실에 의하면 원심 공동피고 1은 원고들에게 위 임대차계약서 및 이행각서를 작성하여 줌으로써 소외 2의 원고들에 대한 채무를 인수하여 위 임대차보증금 중 각 그 해당 몫을 원고들에게 직접 지급하여 주기로 약정하였다고 봄이 상당하다고 판단하였다.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, the plaintiffs' joint defendant 1 of the court below's failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the development time of each claim. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

Of the grounds of appeal, the court below held that each of the above claims against Co-Defendant 1 of the court below against Co-Defendant 1 of the court below was first around 1996, but in light of the context before and after the judgment below, the court below held that each of the above claims against Co-Defendant 1 of the court below against Co-Defendant 1 of the court below was made and delivered on June 3, 1994, i.e., the above lease contract

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below concluded a fraudulent act on December 8, 1995 with the above building site and building (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") which are the sole property of the defendant, and concluded a trust agreement with the defendant: Land development trust (lease). ② Real estate of this case (as at the time, about 90% of the above building is in progress), ③ Development and management methods of trust property: Building a trust building on the trust land, and executing all duties concerning lease, sale and management thereof; ④ Termination of trust period: 5 years from the date of conclusion of the trust contract; 60 years from the date of the trust contract; 60 years from the date of the conclusion of the trust contract; 70 years from the date of the trust contract; 50 days from the date of the above conclusion of the trust contract; 50 days from the date of conclusion of the trust agreement with the defendant 1 or the third party designated by him; 50 days from the above trust contract.

According to the records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to trust act and fraudulent act, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In a case where a legal act on real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, cancellation of the fraudulent act and cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, etc. However, if a fraudulent act is conducted on real estate on which a mortgage is established, such fraudulent act shall be deemed only to be established within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. Therefore, in a case where the registration of creation of a mortgage is cancelled by repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, ordering cancellation of a fraudulent act and restoration of the real estate itself would be an order to recover the portion that was not originally common creditors' joint security, and would result in a violation of equity. Therefore, an order to cancel a fraudulent act and seek compensation for the value thereof within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate, and such amount shall be calculated at the time of conclusion of fact-finding trial proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da6711, Feb. 13, 19

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since 12 of the above trust property was cancelled after the trust contract of this case which was established as a fraudulent act, the court below held that the defendant revoked the above trust contract only for the amount of KRW 668,00,00,000, which is the total amount of the secured debt of the real estate of this case which was cancelled from the total amount of KRW 7,645,115,000, which is the trust property of this case, and deducted KRW 4,780,000 from the total amount of the secured debt of the real estate of this case which was cancelled from the total amount of KRW 2,865,115,00, which is the trust property of this case, as well as KRW 668,00,00, which is within the scope of which it is recognized as necessary to preserve the plaintiffs' claims, and is obliged to return the amount of KRW 340,00,00

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen above, the judgment of the court below is just, and unless there is no evidence to deem that the value of the real estate in this case was specially lowered after the conclusion of the above trust contract, the value of the real estate in this case in the judgment of the court below is the value at the time of the closing of argument in the court below. Thus, there is no error of law in the incomplete hearing as to the scope of restitution, such as the time of appraisal of real estate or the

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)