2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Two minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant are to be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder is to be borne by the defendant.

With respect to each real estate listed in the attached list, the mortgage contract concluded on June 22, 2007 between the Co., Ltd. and the defendant shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part concerning the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be dismissed.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that Article 2-2(b) of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant) is reversed as set forth in Article 2-2(a) of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth below, and that Article 2-2(b) of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part concerning the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in Article 420(b) of the Civil Procedure Act to the end

2. Parts that are considered to be mard or added in the trial; and

A. On June 22, 2007, the Defendant asserted that the second collateral mortgage of this case, which was established in the Defendant’s future, was transferred to a limited liability company specializing in securitization (hereinafter “the first collateral mortgage”) and that, in the course of transfer, the Defendant did not have acquired any payment from the second collateral mortgage contract of this case against the Defendant. Thus, even if the contract for the second collateral mortgage was revoked by fraudulent act, the Plaintiff did not have the right to claim restitution against the Defendant, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

On the other hand, in a case where a subsequent purchaser of a fraudulent act is made, the obligee may freely choose who is the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser to exercise the right to revoke the fraudulent act. Thus, even if the second collateral mortgage of this case was transferred to the second collateral mortgage of this case, the Defendant, the beneficiary, regardless of whether the Plaintiff, who is the subsequent purchaser, is entitled to remedy the subsequent purchaser through the fraudulent act revocation lawsuit against the subsequent purchaser, has the right to return the value when the Plaintiff claims restitution after being rendered a final judgment in favor of the obligee in the lawsuit against the Defendant in this case against the subsequent purchaser. The value here is not the value that the Defendant actually received as the cost for the transfer of the right to collateral security from the second collateral mortgage of this case, but the objective value that the Defendant assessed at the time of closing argument at the fact-finding court of the second collateral collateral mortgage of this case, which is the general creditor, as the cost for the transfer of the right to collateral security from the first collateral collateral mortgage of this case, which is the fraudulent act (in this case, the first collateral amount can be seen as the value of the

As such, insofar as the Plaintiff’s final and conclusive judgment on revocation of a fraudulent act against the Defendant is expected to make a claim for restitution of the value as restitution, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed to be an unlawful lawsuit without benefit in the lawsuit (On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that, as in the instant case, even if a subsequent purchaser is in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act against the beneficiary, as in the instant case, even if the subsequent purchaser is rendered a favorable judgment by seeking a revocation of the fraudulent act against the beneficiary, the subsequent purchaser is to seek revocation of the fraudulent act, and thus, there is no benefit in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in question. However, as seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff can make a claim for restitution against the Defendant, who is not the subsequent purchaser, the subsequent purchaser, regardless of whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to remedy the subsequent purchaser), the Defendant’s defense on the merits

B. However, the defendant or the defendant did not receive any dividend on the ground of the second priority mortgage of this case which was created on the land of this case (the third priority dividend amount of the second priority 805,213,613, which was shown in Eul evidence 14, regarding the land of this case, seems to have been based on the right to collateral security of Japan 78,000,000 UN maximum debt amount set up in the defendant's future on December 14, 2005 prior to the second priority mortgage of this case). Since the contract to collateral security of this case between the defendant and Pongyang-ro company about the land of this case did not cause a decrease in the joint collateral of the general creditor, it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant seeking the cancellation of the contract to establish the second collateral mortgage contract of this case, which is concluded between Pungyang-ro and the Defendant as to the land of this case, is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case, the contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on June 22, 2007 between Pungyang-ro Co., Ltd. and the defendant as to the building in this case constitutes a fraudulent act and the remaining claim is revoked, and it is dismissed as there is no reason. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair. Thus, among the part concerning the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the land in this case, the part against the defendant revoking the contract to establish a right to collateral security which was concluded on June 22, 2007 between Pungyang-ro Co., Ltd. and the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. The defendant's remaining

[Attachment of List]

Judges Kang Young-ho (Presiding Judge)