1. In determining whether a fraudulent act is a subject of creditor revocation, if an asset owned by an obligor is provided as a physical collateral for another obligee’s claims, the portion offered as a physical collateral cannot be deemed as the obligor’s liability property for the general obligees. Therefore, the obligor’s active property should be assessed only after deducting the amount of the secured claim held by another obligee from the value of the asset offered as a physical collateral.

In this case, if a joint mortgage is established on several real estate, the amount of the secured debt to each real estate is divided by the amount of the secured debt of the joint mortgage in proportion to the value of each real estate that is the object of joint mortgage in light of the purport of Article 368 of the Civil Code, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da90402 Decided August 18, 2016, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da21462 Decided July 29, 2016, etc.). In addition, in cases where a real estate on which a mortgage has been established is transferred by means of a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act is established within the extent of the value of the real estate, i.e., the balance obtained by deducting the secured amount of the mortgage from the market value, and where the secured amount exceeds the value of the real estate, the transfer of the real estate concerned cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act. The secured amount of the secured claim here is not the maximum debt amount in the case of a

(2) On October 9, 2001, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the adopted evidence, and determined that only one of the creditors was the act of reducing the co-security of the other general creditors of B, a debtor, and the act of reducing the co-security of the other general creditors of B.

(1) The Defendant is owned by B to secure a loan claim of KRW 120 million against B on August 16, 2012.