1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant received KRW 200 million from D as the repayment of down payment following the cancellation of the sales contract and KRW 200 million as the penalty. Since each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the instant mortgage agreements concluded between the Defendant and D was cancelled, each of the of the of the instant mortgages agreements concluded between the Defendant and D constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a compensation for value as the Defendant became unable to return originals. 2) In the instant case, there are special circumstances cited by the first instance judgment, as stated in the Supreme Court Decision 2011Da75232 Decided May 9, 2013.

3) Since a claim for compensation for value was filed together, the dismissal judgment is unreasonable. (B) First, we examine the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for compensation for value.

If an obligee filed a lawsuit against a beneficiary seeking cancellation or restitution of a fraudulent act on the ground of a debtor’s fraudulent act, and during the course of the lawsuit, the said fraudulent act has been rescinded or terminated and the obligee has returned to the obligor by punishing the property for which return has been sought by the revocation of such fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, the obligee’s revocation lawsuit is no longer effective and no longer has the benefit of protecting the rights to be secured by such lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da85157, Mar. 27, 2008). In the instant case, each contract establishing a mortgage between the Defendant and D is concluded.