2. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 2 and Defendant 1’s appeal are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit after appeal, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 is assessed against the same Defendant.

Defendant 1: Revocation of the part against Defendant 1 among the original judgment. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1 is dismissed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence 2 to 6.

A. On April 7, 1994 with respect to the site stated in the separate sheet No. 1, which was previously owned by the original non-party 2, the transfer registration under the non-party 1 was made on May 4, 1994 with respect to the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "real estate of this case"), and on May 26, 1994 with respect to the building listed in the same list No. 2, the registration of ownership was made on the non-party 1, and on June 8, 1994 with respect to the real estate of this case, the registration of ownership transfer under the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "the title transfer registration of this case") was made on the ground of the donation on June 8, 1994, and on September 5, 1994, the agreement to establish the mortgage of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage No. 150,000,000 won").

B. The non-party 1 and the defendant 2 are the subject of a sex punishment. The non-party 2 is his biological mother, and the defendant 1 reported the marriage with the non-party 1 on March 7, 1973 and gave birth to the non-party 3 (the non-party 12 August 12, 1971) and the non-party 4 (the non-party 13 July 13, 1974) among them, and a divorce was made on June 13, 194.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1

A. As to the plaintiff's cause of claim

(1)The following facts may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleading to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8-1 to 3, 9-1, 2, 1-1 to 3, 6-9, and 20 of Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 8, 12, 14, and 5 of Eul evidence Nos. 4-2, 8, 12, 14, and 5 of Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 4-2, and 6 of the new witness of the trial (other than each part believed in the rear) and the witness of the trial cannot be trusted, and each part of Eul evidence Nos. 4-2, and 6 is not interfered with the above recognition, and there is no evidence to establish the above recognition otherwise.

(A) On April 1994, Nonparty 1, upon receiving the instant real estate from Nonparty 2 and completing the registration of transfer or preservation of ownership, was liable to pay gift tax amounting to KRW 158,162,600 to the Plaintiff at the time of acquisition.

(B) Furthermore, from 1988 prior to the acquisition of the real estate of this case, Nonparty 1 joined the non-party military livestock cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party military livestock cooperative") as a member of the non-party military livestock cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party military cooperative") and entered into a mixed feed transaction agreement with a maximum purchase amount of KRW 140,000 on October 11, 1990, with a maximum purchase amount of KRW 140,000,000. From October 12 to April 8, 1994, the non-party 1 purchased feed amounting to KRW 121,096,886 from the non-party cooperative on credit with a total of KRW 30,00,000 on December 21, 1990 and received KRW 2,00,000 on March 7, 1993 as the repayment condition of KRW 30,000 on September 13, 1994.

(C) In addition, Nonparty 1 promised to pay the amount equivalent to his inheritance shares to Defendant 2 according to the donation of the instant real estate from Nonparty 2 up to approximately KRW 300,000,000 at the time.

(d)On the other hand, Nonparty 1 owned the instant real estate and the instant real estate at that time and owned 10,00,000,000 won and 3,394,160,000,000 won (836,000,000 won) at the time of the instant farm, which had already been offered as security to the non-party association, and 630,000 square meters at 344,00,000,000,000 won (83,394,160,000,000 won (8364,060,000 won) at the time of the instant farm, and on the other hand, the remainder of the instant real estate except for the real estate is not sufficient to resolve not only the inheritance share of the above and the inheritance share of the non-party 2, but also the debt owed to the above association.

(e)However, on May 30, 1994, Nonparty 1 divorced from Defendant 1 who was his wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case to Defendant 1 on June 8 of the same year.

(f)The non-party union filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the gift contract of this case and the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case with the Daegu District Court 95Na6759 on March 22, 1995, and the cancellation of the mortgage contract of this case against the defendant 2, the defendant 2 filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the mortgage contract of this case and the cancellation of the mortgage creation registration of this case. On November 6, 1996, the above court was sentenced to the dismissal judgment against the defendant 1, and the dismissal judgment against the defendant 2 was sentenced to the defendant 196Na7275 on May 9, 1997, but the dismissal judgment was sentenced to the Supreme Court 97Da2341 on September 5, 1997, and the ownership transfer registration of this case was not cancelled due to the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case.

(2) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 1 transferred the instant real estate to Defendant 1, knowing that Nonparty 1 would harm the Plaintiff, etc., the creditor in excess of debt.

(3) (A) Defendant 1, who was married with Nonparty 1 on March 7, 1973, but decided to divorce on May 30, 1994 due to Nonparty 1’s insane and sane, etc., and, on May 30, 1994, became entitled to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate as property division, consolation money, and child rearing expenses, which is a substantial amount of property division, and thus, is not subject to revocation of fraudulent act.

(B)Therefore, according to the above facts, even if Defendant 1 took over the instant real estate under the pretext of division of property, consolation money, and child rearing expenses, this is deemed to have been excessive to the extent that it cannot be considered reasonable in light of the purport of Article 839-2, Paragraph 2, of the Civil Code. Thus, the above defendant's above assertion has no reason to examine more.

B. As to Defendant 1’s defense

The above defendant's defense that he was unable to know at all to harm creditors including the plaintiff when he received the real estate in this case from the non-party 1. Thus, the above defendant's defense cannot be accepted since part of the testimony of the above new conflict of interest, which seems to correspond to this, is not reliable, and there is a lack to recognize the evidence No. 1-6 through No. 11, No. 15, No. 16, 19, 23, 32, No. 4-7, 8, 10, 12, and 14-7, No. 4-8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

(c) Scope of revocation and methods of reinstatement;

(1)In principle, the scope of revocation as a fraudulent act should be limited to the range exceeding its 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' in light of the purport of Article 839bis 2 of the Civil Code, in special circumstances where it is deemed that the division of property caused by a false divorce is unreasonable.' However, in special circumstances where partial revocation

(2) However, in the instant case, Nonparty 1 received the instant real estate from Nonparty 2 on April 1994 and completed the registration of ownership transfer or preservation of the building on May 4 of the same month. As seen above, the instant real estate is not a common property formed through mutual cooperation between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 during marriage, nor does the said Defendant prevent the decrease in the maintenance of the instant real estate. The child born between Nonparty 1 and the said Defendant can not be considered to be a large amount of child support because the child would reach majority, and as seen below, the registration of ownership transfer of KRW 150,000 on the instant real estate is maintained, and thus, the scope of "the substantial nature" should be limited to the Plaintiff as to the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate. Therefore, in some of the revocation and ownership of the instant real estate should not be limited to the extent that the Plaintiff bears a substantial burden on the Plaintiff as well as the real value of the instant real estate in the name of Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1.

(3)Therefore, the gift contract of this case cannot be exempted from the revocation of its entirety as a fraudulent act, and as long as the establishment registration of the mortgage of this case is maintained, the restoration to its original state is bound by the registration of the transfer of ownership.

2. Claim against the defendant 2

A. The parties' assertion

On the basis of the facts established above, Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 2 sought the implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case, which was concluded between Defendant 2, the subsequent purchaser, and Defendant 1, due to the cancellation of the above establishment of a mortgage and the restoration to the original state. Defendant 2 did not know that the above establishment of a mortgage was detrimental to the Plaintiff.

(b) Markets:

(1) Accordingly, considering the whole purport of the pleading, Defendant 2 paid to Nonparty 1 the above evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6 through 13, 17, 18, 24 through 27, 30, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-23, 32, and 4-7, 8, 10, 12, and 14 on the part of the evidence Nos. 4-7, 8, 14, which were non-party 1 and non-party 1 to whom the above evidence Nos. 1 to 1 to 4, 6, 17, and 9, which were non-party 1 to whom the above evidence Nos. 1 to 30 had been established, and the non-party 1 to whom the above evidence No. 1 to 97, which was non-party 1 to the Seoul High Court, had the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 to whom the ownership transfer registration was made on the real estate No. 1 to 97.

(2) In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 did not know that it would prejudice the creditors including the Plaintiff at the time of the above mortgage contract. Therefore, the above defense by Defendant 2 is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is justified, and the claim against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the remaining part of the claim against the defendant 1, which was invalidated due to the exchange change of part of the lawsuit in the trial among the original judgment, except for the part of the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer registration against the defendant 1, is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2 and the appeal against the defendant 1 are all dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 as changed in exchange in the trial is accepted, it is so decided

Judges leap (Presiding Judge) Foreign Motion Pictures