1. As to the assertion on active property

A. The lower court determined whether Nonparty 1 was in excess of the obligation at the time of transferring the right to sell each of the instant real estate as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and included Nonparty 1’s ○○○○ apartment that completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future between Nonparty 2, 3 and Nonparty 4 (Nos. 407, 607, 808, 907, 107, 1207, and 1207, and hereinafter “each of the instant apartment”).

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) In a case where a debtor has engaged in a series of property disposal activities, in principle, whether each act causes insolvency shall be determined depending on whether each act occurred. However, in a case where there are special circumstances to see the series of such activities as a single act, the determination of whether a series of such activities is a whole of them shall be made by comprehensively taking into account whether the other party to the disposition is identical, whether each disposition is close to time, whether the other party has special relations with the debtor, and whether the motive or opportunity for each disposition is identical (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23857 delivered on September 24, 2002).

(2) Review of the reasoning and records of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

① Nonparty 2 was omitted by Nonparty 1, and the Defendant is the wife of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3 is the husband of Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 4 is the child of Nonparty 1.

② Although the transfer date of the right to sell the real estate of this case was July 16, 2009, the grounds for registration and the date of registration on each of the real estate of this case and apartment houses are the same or very close to time.

③ By June 22, 2009, Nonparty 1 paid 900 million won for the sale price of each of the instant real estate and apartment units, including ○○○○○○ apartment units 20,000 won, and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer even if the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the instant officetels owned by Nonparty 1, and entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the transfer of the ownership of each of the instant real estate on July 10, 2009, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate and apartment units only once a month.

④ On July 14, 2009, 2009, YS Urban Development Co., Ltd., the representative director of which was Nonparty 2, entered into a mining comprehensive construction company and a sales agency service contract for the ○○○○○○ apartment (each of the instant real estate is part thereof) and conducted sales agency. Nonparty 2, other than Nonparty 1, prepared a certificate of deposit (Evidence 2) of each of the instant real estate with Nonparty 5, etc. on July 16, 2009, which is the date of the agreement on the transfer of the ownership of the instant real estate. In addition, considering that Nonparty 2’s completion of the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 2 from among the instant apartment, it is highly probable that Nonparty 2 dealt with the transfer of the ownership and the registration of the ownership of each of the instant real estate and the instant apartment.

(3) According to the above factual relations, it is sufficient to conclude that the disposal disposition of each of the instant real estate and each of the instant apartment buildings is a single act according to the same intention. Thus, in determining whether the disposal disposition of the instant real estate and each of the instant apartment buildings has been in excess of the debt by transferring the ownership of the instant real estate, each of the instant apartment buildings should not be considered as active property.

Nevertheless, the lower court concluded that each apartment of this case’s apartment was not in excess of debt, including active property, exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fraudulent act of obligee’s right of revocation, thereby making

2. As to the assertion on small property

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not recognize the obligations against the non-party 6, 7, and 8 except the small property in its holding (3) through (5). In light of the records, the judgment below is just and there is no error exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)