Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Compact, Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 25, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gadan5097324 Decided August 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

A. Part on claim for payment of money

The plaintiff and the non-party 1, the non-party 4, and the non-party 2 shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 560,09,393 won and 557,173,565 won among them, and the non-party 5 of the defendant 1 and the non-party 5 of the first instance court shall jointly and severally pay to the above Co-defendant 167,623,502 won among the above money and 16,426,792 won from April 23, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of complete payment, the money calculated at the rate of 20 percent per annum from the day of complete payment.

B. Part on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

[Attachment (1) Part concerning real estate listed in Table 1]

(1) Claim against Defendant 1

The agreement on the gift made between Co-Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 of the first instance trial on October 26, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) shall be revoked. In the first instance trial, Defendant 1 will implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed as of October 27, 201 with respect to the instant real estate, to Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial on October 26, 201. Defendant 1 will pay to the Plaintiff 89,000,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

B. The claim against the Defendant Hyundai Pulcomob Korea Ltd.

㈎ 주위적으로, 피고 1에게 이 사건 1 부동산에 관하여 인천지방법원 북인천등기소 2011. 11. 4. 접수 제76246호로 마친 근저당권설정등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라.

㈏ 예비적으로, 피고 1과 피고 현대성우오토모티브코리아 주식회사 사이에 2011. 11. 4. 이 사건 1 부동산에 관하여 체결한 근저당권설정계약은 이를 취소한다. 피고 현대성우오토모티브코리아 주식회사는 피고 1에게 이 사건 1 부동산에 관하여 인천지방법원 북인천등기소 2011. 11. 4. 접수 제76246호로 마친 근저당권설정등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라.

[Attachment (1) The part concerning each real estate listed in Table 2 or 5]

On November 4, 2011, the agreement to establish a mortgage between Defendant 1 and Defendant Hyundai Pupy Korea Co., Ltd. on each of the real estate listed in the table Nos. 2 through 5 (hereinafter “instant 2 through 5 real estate”) shall be revoked. The Defendant Hyundai Pupy Co., Ltd. will implement each of the registration procedures for cancellation of the establishment of a mortgage on each of the instant 2 through 5 real estate, which was completed on November 4, 201 by the receipt of No. 76246 of the Incheon District Court’s North Incheon District Court’s registry office, as to the instant 2 through 5 real estate, to Defendant 1.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

B. Restoration due to the cancellation of a donation contract concluded between Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 1 on October 26, 201 with respect to the instant real estate on October 26, 201. Defendant 1 performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on October 27, 201 with respect to the instant real estate to Nonparty 1 co-Defendant 1 of the first instance court, which completed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on October 27, 201 by the Incheon District Court North Incheon District Court’s Office of Registry of Registry of 73981, and Defendant Hyundai Sungsung-Mamob Korea Co-Defendant 1 performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on November 4, 2011 with respect to the same real estate with respect to Defendant 1.

C. On November 4, 2011, the agreement on the establishment of a mortgage between Defendant 1 and Defendant Hyundai Pupy Korea Co., Ltd. regarding the “real estate 2 through 5” is revoked. The Defendant Hyundai Pupy Korea Co., Ltd. will implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of each registration of the establishment of a mortgage on each of the instant 2 through 5 real estate to Defendant 1, which was completed on November 4, 201 by the Incheon District Court North Incheon Incheon Incheon District Court’s Incheon Incheon District Court’s Office of Registry No. 76246.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for monetary reimbursement against Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., 1, 4, 2, 5, and Defendant 1. The Plaintiff filed a claim for fraudulent act cancellation and restitution against Defendant 1 and Defendant Hyundai M&IB Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai P&I”). The court of first instance revoked the Plaintiff’s claim for monetary payment and the donation contract between Defendant 1 and the Co.,Defendant 1 and the first instance trial on the instant real estate as a fraudulent act, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and return of the amount of preliminary claim. The Plaintiff’s primary claim was dismissed as a restitution, and all of the conjunctive and conjunctive claims regarding the instant real estate were dismissed. Accordingly, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the primary claim for restitution due to the cancellation of the fraudulent act on the instant real estate, and the claim for restitution to the original status of Defendant Hyundai M&I and the instant claim for restitution to the original status of the instant real estate.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s monetary claim against the co-defendant 1 and Defendant 1 in the first instance trial

(1) The Plaintiff concluded a credit guarantee agreement on four occasions between January 26, 2006 and December 15, 2010 under the joint and several surety of Co-Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 1 in the first instance trial, and issued a credit guarantee agreement to the above white book (the Defendant 1 was jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff only at the time of the third credit guarantee agreement as set forth below) as shown in the separate sheet No. 1, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 5, respectively.

B. On November 18, 201, 201, the white paper Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Ltd., in the first instance trial, obtained loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea four times on the security of each of the above credit guarantee instruments (after that, the guarantee period and guarantee amount set forth in each of the above credit guarantee agreements were changed), and on November 18, 201, the white paper Co., Ltd., lost the benefit of time due to the occurrence of the guarantee accident caused by the insolvency of the related company. The Industrial Bank

On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff subrogated the Industrial Bank of Korea for KRW 567,407,50 in total, and collected KRW 11,23,940 among them, and the balance of the subrogated amount was KRW 557,173,565. Under each credit guarantee agreement, the amount of damages for the subrogation amount was 309,318 won, and the total amount of damages was 2,616,510 won.

Accordingly, according to the plaintiff's payment of the principal and interest of the loan to the Industrial Bank of Korea, the plaintiff's joint and several liability amounting to 560,09,393 won [the remainder amounting to 57,110,740 won by subrogation + KRW 9,704,579 + KRW 16,426,79 for the second subrogation + KRW 16,426,92 for the third subrogation + KRW 279,931,454 for the third subrogation of the plaintiff 2, 616,510 + KRW 110,000 for the second subrogation of the court of first instance, KRW 360 for the second subrogation of the court of first instance, KRW 2,616,510 for the second subrogation of the non-party 2,00, KRW 110,070 for the second installment + KRW 718,000 for the second subrogation of the court of first instance, KRW 197,1970 for the defendant

B. Donation contracts, etc. on real estate of this case

On October 26, 2011, Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial donated the instant real estate to Defendant 1 (hereinafter “the instant donation contract”), and on October 27, 201, Defendant 1 issued the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the instant ownership transfer registration”) No. 73981 on October 27, 201 with respect to the said real estate to Defendant 1 on October 27, 201.

C. Contract to establish a mortgage concerning 2 to 5 real estate of this case

On November 4, 2011, Defendant 1 provided the instant 2 or 5 real estate, including the instant 1 real estate donated by Nonparty 1, as a joint collateral to Defendant Hyundai Co., Ltd., and entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant Hyundai Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) with regard to each of the instant real estate, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 36 million as to each of the instant real estate as well as the debtor’s white book as to each of the instant real estate. Defendant Hyundai Hyundai Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”). On November 4, 2011, the Incheon District Court Decision 76246, which was received on November 4, 201, filed for the establishment registration of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 8, 11 through 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The judgment on the claim against Defendant 1 (the claim for the revocation of fraudulent act as to the instant one real estate and the primary and preliminary claim as to restitution), and on the primary claim as to the instant one real estate against Defendant Hyundai Co., Ltd.

(i)The secured claim for fraudulent act

㈎ 채권자취소권의 피보전채권은 원칙적으로 사해행위라고 볼 수 있는 행위가 행하여지기 전에 발생된 것임을 요하지만, 그 사해행위 당시에 이미 채권 성립의 기초가 되는 법률관계가 발생되어 있고, 가까운 장래에 그 법률관계에 터잡아 채권이 성립되리라는 점에 대한 고도의 개연성이 있으며, 실제로 가까운 장래에 그 개연성이 현실화되어 채권이 성립된 경우에는 그 채권도 채권자취소권의 피보전채권이 될 수 있다( 대법원 2012. 2. 23. 선고 2011다76426 판결 등 참조).

㈏ 위 인정사실 및 앞서 든 증거들에 의하면, 이 사건 증여계약이 체결된 2011. 10. 26. 전에 제1심 공동 피고 소외 1 및 피고 1 등의 연대보증 아래 원고와 주식회사 백록 사이에 위 각 신용보증약정이 체결되어 있어 이미 채권성립의 기초가 되는 법률관계가 발생되어 있었고, 그 후 주식회사 백록이 2011. 11. 18. 관계회사의 사고에 따른 부실로 기한의 이익을 상실한 이래 대출원리금을 변제하지 못하는 등 자금사정이 악화되기까지하여 가까운 장래에 원고가 주식회사 백록의 위 각 대출원리금 채무를 대위변제함으로써 구상금채권이 성립되리라는 점에 대한 고도의 개연성이 있었으며, 실제로 2012. 4. 23. 원고가 중소기업은행에 위와 같이 대위변제함으로써 그 개연성이 현실화되어 구상금채권이 성립되었으므로 원고의 주식회사 백록의 연대보증인인 제1심 공동피고 소외 1에 대한 구상금채권도 채권자취소권의 피보전채권이 될 수 있다.

Doz. Whether a fraudulent act is constituted

㈎ 채무자가 자기의 유일한 재산인 부동산을 타인에게 무상으로 증여하는 행위는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 채권자에 대하여 사해행위가 된다( 대법원 2005. 10. 14. 선고 2003다60891 판결 , 대법원 2008. 2. 14. 선고 2007다74843 판결 등 참조).

㈏ 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지(제1심 감정인 소외 6의 2013. 3. 11.자 감정평가서)에 의하면, 제1심 공동피고 소외 1은 이 사건 증여계약 무렵이던 2011. 10. 26. 당시 시가 1억 3,700만 원 상당인 이 사건 1 부동산 이외에 재산적 가치가 있는 재산을 보유하지 않았던 반면, 최소한 원고에 대하여 가까운 장래에 현실화될 개연성이 있었던 560,099,393원 및 그 지연손해금 상당의 구상금채무를 부담하고 있었던 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고 소외 1은 자신의 유일한 재산인 이 사건 1 부동산을 피고 1에게 무상으로 증여함으로써 원고를 비롯한 제1심 공동피고 소외 1의 일반채권자들에 대한 공동담보의 부족을 초래하였다고 볼 수 있으므로, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이 사건 증여계약은 사해행위에 해당한다.

㈐ 이에 대하여 우선 피고 1은, 이 사건 1부동산은 위 피고가 피고 현대성우의 소외 1에 대한 4,800만 원 상당의 물품대금 채무를 승계하기로 하면서 증여받은 것이므로 부담부증여에 해당하여, 이 사건 증여계약은 사해행위에 해당하지 않는다는 취지로 주장한다.

In addition, there is no other evidence to prove that Defendant 1 succeeded to the obligation to pay for the goods to Nonparty 1’s Defendant Hyundai Co., Ltd. as alleged in the above assertion. Even if Defendant 1 succeeded to the obligation equivalent to the above assertion, the market price of the real estate of this case is 137 million won in that the market price of the real estate of this case is 18 million won in that the amount of the obligation succeeded by Defendant 1 is deducted from the real estate price of this case, and there is a difference equivalent to KRW 89 million in the amount of the obligation claimed by Defendant 1. Thus, Nonparty 1’s active property offered to the general creditors as joint collateral due to the gift contract of this case has been reduced to the extent equivalent to the above difference. Thus, the gift contract of this case is still a fraudulent act, and thus, Defendant 1’s above assertion is without merit

㈑ 나아가 피고 현대성우는, 피고 1과 제1심 공동피고 소외 1이 모두 주식회사 백록의 원고에 대한 구상금 채무를 연대보증 하였으므로, 소외 1이 피고 1에게 이 사건 1 부동산을 증여하였더라도 이 사건 1 부동산은 여전히 다른 연대보증인인 피고 1의 책임재산으로서 원고의 채권에 담보로 제공되고 있으니, 이 사건 증여계약이 원고의 채권을 해하는 사해행위에 해당하는 것은 아니라는 취지로 주장한다.

However, inasmuch as a creditor files a lawsuit of fraudulent act as a collection agency for the purpose of preserving not only his own claim but also the debtor's other creditors' properties, even if the overall security of the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement is not changed due to the contract of this case, as long as the defendant 1 did not separately provide personal security to the other creditors of the non-party 1, the joint security still decreased in relation to the non-party 1's other creditors, so the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009), and there is no ground for the above assertion by the defendant Mosung.

㈒ 따라서, 제1심 공동피고 소외 1과 피고 1 사이에 이 사건 1 부동산에 관하여 체결된 이 사건 증여계약은 사해행위에 해당한다.

【Defendant 1’s good faith assertion

㈎ 이 사건 증여계약은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 사해행위에 해당하므로, 수익자인 피고 1의 악의는 추정된다( 대법원 2013. 11. 28. 선고 2013다206986 판결 등 참조).

㈏ 이에 대하여 피고 1은, 1999. 4. 15.경부터 피고 현대성우, 소외 경원산업 주식회사와 대리점 계약을 체결하고 자동차 배터리 판매업 등을 운영하던 남편 소외 1과는 별도로, 피고 1이 자신의 명의로 2011. 10. 17. ‘○○’라는 상호로 사업자등록을 한 후 독자적으로 자동차 배터리를 포함한 자동차 용품점 등을 경영하며 피고 소외 1로부터 피고 현대성우에 대한 4,800만 원 상당의 채무를 승계하는 조건으로 이 사건 1 부동산을 증여받았을 뿐 이 사건 증여계약이 사해행위에 해당한다는 사정을 알지 못하였으므로, 피고 1은 선의의 수익자에 해당한다는 취지로 주장한다.

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 was a bona fide beneficiary with no knowledge of Nonparty 1’s intention to harm, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, considering the results of the inquiry into the National Bank of the first instance, Defendant 1 was the wife of Nonparty 1, who is the principal debtor, the representative director of the 0th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 200th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 2. day of the 3th day of the sale.

x) the assertion and determination of the good faith of Defendant Hyundai Co., Ltd., the subsequent purchaser

㈎ 채무자 소외 1의 이 사건 증여계약 체결행위가 사해행위로 인정되므로, 전득자인 피고 현대성우의 악의도 추정된다.

㈏ 이에 대하여 피고 현대성우는 피고 1과 사이에 이 사건 1 근저당권설정계약을 체결할 당시 피고 소외 1의 이 사건 증여계약 체결행위가 사해행위에 해당함을 알지 못하였으므로, 선의의 전득자에 해당한다는 취지로 주장한다.

In cases where a creditor seeks revocation of a legal act against a subsequent purchaser through revocation of a fraudulent act, the subsequent purchaser’s bad faith, as a requirement for such recognition, refers to the perception that the legal act seeking revocation would prejudice the creditor at the time of the subsequent purchase, that is, that is, the awareness that the subsequent purchaser satisfies the objective requirements of the fraudulent act. As such, in determining the subsequent purchaser’s bad faith, it is only problematic whether the subsequent purchaser, at the time of the subsequent purchase, knows the existence of the legal act between the debtor and the beneficiary, and it does not, in principle, be problematic (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da87672, Aug. 17, 2012).

In other words, according to the case, from around 199 to the 15th day of Hyundai Co., Ltd., Defendant Hyundai Co., Ltd., it was difficult to conclude that the above real estate was an agent contract, such as automobile dispatch, and continuous supply of goods has been made. On October 31, 201, at the rate of KRW 7.8 million of the endorsement of the White Book Co., Ltd., which was paid as the price for the goods, due to the default on payment, it was difficult to request the White Book Co., Ltd. and its representative director to pay for the default bills and provide additional collateral. According to the circumstance that the above 1 to 5th day of Hyundai Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was not known that the above 1 to 5th day of Hyundai Real Estate Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was owned by the above Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., and that the 1st day of Hyundai Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which was not the sole reason to acknowledge the above 10th day of Hyundai Real Estate.

(v)Cancellation of fraudulent act;

Therefore, it is obvious that Defendant 1’s contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and at least 560,09,393 won as to the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity at the time of the closing of argument in this case exceeds KRW 137,00,000 as to the market value of the real estate of this case at the time of the closing of argument in this case. Therefore, the contract of this case should be completely revoked.

⑹ 원상회복의 방법

㈎ 원물반환이 불가능하거나 현저히 곤란한 경우에는 예외적으로 원물반환에 갈음하여 가액배상에 의한 원상회복이 허용되는바, 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 증여계약이 사해행위로서 취소되나 전득자인 피고 현대성우가 선의로 이 사건 근저당권을 설정함에 따라 그 근저당권설정등기가 말소될 수 없게 됨에 따라 피고 1은 원고에게 피고 현대성우의 근저당권설정등기가 말소된 상태로 위 부동산을 반환하는 것이 불가능하거나 현저히 곤란하게 되었다고 할 것이므로, 원고는 피고 1에게 원물반환을 구할 수는 없고 그에 갈음한 가액배상을 구할 수 있을 뿐이다.

㈏ 한편 앞서 든 증거에 의하면 이 사건 증여계약 당시 이 사건 1 부동산에 관하여는 1999. 4. 15.자로 채무자 소외 1(1999. 5. 7. 채무자가 피고 주식회사 백록으로 변경되었다), 근저당권자 경원산업 주식회사, 채권최고액 4,800만 원의 근저당권설정등기가 경료되어 있었음을 알 수 있으므로, 당심 변론종결일 당시의 이 사건 1 부동산의 가액으로 추인되는 1억 3,700만 원(이 사건 근저당권설정 당시를 기준으로 한 평가 가액으로, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 당심 변론종결일에도 동일한 액수일 것으로 추인된다)에서 위 채권최고액 4,800만 원을 공제한 8,900만 원 상당만이 소외 1의 일반채권자들의 채권에 대한 공동담보로 제공되어 있었다고 할 것이므로, 가액배상도 그 범위 내에서 인정된다.

㈐ 따라서, 피고 1은 원고에게 이 사건 증여계약의 취소에 따른 원상회복으로 8,900만 원 및 이에 대하여 이 판결확정일 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 민법이 정한 연 5%의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급할 의무가 있다.

⑺ 소결론

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the gift contract of this case between the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 is with merit, and the main claim seeking the return of originals as restitution for the cancellation of fraudulent act is without merit, and the preliminary claim seeking compensation for value is reasonable, and the main claim for the real estate of this case seeking restitution for the return of originals on the premise that the plaintiff is the subsequent purchaser in bad faith with respect to the defendant's modern sex, is without merit.

C. Determination on the remainder of the Defendant Hyundai Co., Ltd. (the conjunctive claim as to the instant one real estate and the claim as to the instant 2 to 5 real estate)

(i)The secured claim for fraudulent act

The claim for reimbursement against Defendant 1, one of the joint and several suretiess of the Plaintiff’s White Book, which had not yet been established at the time of the legal act claiming a fraudulent act, is also set forth in the above 3-A. (i) The creditor’s right of revocation becomes the preserved claim on the ground as described in the above 3-3-A.

B. Whether a fraudulent act establishing a mortgage contract regarding the first real property of this case was established

As seen earlier, the gift contract of this case concluded between Co-Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 in the first instance trial as to the real estate of this case was revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. Since the real estate of this case was no longer owned by Defendant 1 and it does not constitute his responsible property, and even if Defendant 1 offered the above real estate as security to the Defendant Hyundai Ho, it may not be revoked by deeming it as an independent fraudulent act. Therefore, under the premise that the mortgage contract on the real estate of this case concluded between Defendant 1 and Defendant Hyundai Ho-sung constitutes a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff’s preliminary claim on the real estate of this case seeking revocation and restitution is no longer reasonable.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act concerning the establishment of the right to collateral security concerning the 2 to 5 real estate

㈎ 사해행위 취소소송에서 채무자의 무자력 여부는 원칙적으로 사해행위 당시를 기준으로 판단하여야 하나( 대법원 2012. 1. 12. 선고 2010다64792 판결 ), 재산의 처분행위 당시에는 채권자를 해하는 것이었다고 하더라도 그 후 채무자가 자력을 회복하여 사해행위취소권을 행사하는 사실심의 변론종결시에 채권자를 해하지 않게 된 경우에는 책임재산 보전의 필요성이 없어지게 되어 채권자취소권이 소멸하는 것으로 보아야 할 것이므로( 대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007다54849 판결 ), 채무자의 무자력 요건은 결국 사실심 변론종결시를 기준으로도 판단하여야 한다.

㈏ 이 사건에 관하여 살펴 보건대, 앞서 든 증거들 및 갑 제9호증(가지번호 포함), 을가 제14 내지 25호증의 각 기재, 제1심 법원의 주식회사 우리은행, 중소기업은행, 주식회사 신한은행, 국토해양부장관에 대한 각 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지(제1심 감정인 소외 6의 2013. 3. 11.자 감정평가서)를 종합하면, ① 피고 1은 이 사건 2 내지 5 부동산에 대한 이 사건 근저당권설정계약일인 2011. 11. 4. 당시 위 각 부동산 이외에는 재산적 가치가 있는 별다른 재산을 보유하지 못했던 사실(이 사건 1 부동산은 앞서 본 바와 같이 소외 1과 피고 1 사이의 증여계약이 사해행위로서 취소되므로 피고 1의 책임재산에 포함될 수 없다), ② 이 사건 근저당권설정 계약일 무렵인 2011. 10. 26. 당시 이 사건 2, 4, 5 부동산의 시가는 각 순서대로 1억 9,000만 원, 2,500만 원, 1억 6,700만 원이었고, 2011. 11월경 이 사건 3 부동산의 시가(갑 제9호증의 일반 평균가)는 2억 250만 원이었던 사실, ③ 한편 이 사건 근저당권설정계약일 무렵 이 사건 2 부동산에 관하여는 채무자 피고 1, 근저당권자 주식회사 국민은행, 채권최고액 6,500만 원의 1999. 11. 24.자 근저당권설정등기가, 이 사건 3 부동산에 관하여는 채무자 피고 1, 근저당권자 주식회사 신한은행, 채권최고액 2,400만 원의 2002. 5. 2.자 근저당권설정등기가, 이 사건 4, 5 부동산에 관하여는 채무자 주식회사 백록, 근저당권자 경원산업 주식회사, 채권최고액 1억 2,000만 원의 1999. 7. 7.자 근저당권설정등기가 각 마쳐져 있었고, 이 사건 3 부동산에 관하여는 종전부터 거주하여 왔던 임차인인 주식회사 국민은행과 사이에 임대차기간 2011. 9. 2.부터 2013. 9. 1.까지, 임대차보증금 1억 1,000만 원으로 된 2011. 7. 27.자 임대차계약이 체결되어 있었던 사실, ④ 이 사건 근저당권설정계약일 무렵 위 근저당권자 주식회사 국민은행으로 된 1999. 11. 24.자 근저당권의 피담보채무액수는 39,959,811원이었고, 근저당권자 주식회사 신한은행으로 된 2002. 5. 2.자 근저당권의 피담보채무는 존재하지 아니하였던 사실, ⑤ 이후 피고 1은 당심 소송계속 중인 2014. 6. 24. 원고에게 이 사건 구상금 채무 중 피고 1의 연대보증채무의 변제임을 지정하여 1억 2,062만 원을 변제하였던 사실이 각 인정된다.

According to the above facts, since the defendant 1's active act of establishing a mortgage contract of this case between 30 billion won and 50 million won was 50,000 won [190,000 won (2 real estate of this case) + 250,000 won (4 real estate of this case) + 167 million won (5,000 won) + 39,000 won (5,000 won (5 real estate of this case) + 167,000 won was 39,000 won and 9650,000 won, 196,000 won, 39,000 won and 50,000 won, 196,000 won and 50,000 won, 39,000 won and 150,000 won, 196,000 won, more than 39,000 won and 5,000 won,00 won,0 won.

· Sub-committee theory

Therefore, under the premise that the instant mortgage contract concluded between Defendant 1 and Hyundai Co., Ltd. regarding the instant 1 to 5 real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim regarding the instant 1 real estate against the Defendant Hyundai Co., Ltd., seeking the revocation and restitution of the original status, and the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the instant 2 to 5 real estate and restitution of the original status are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the fraudulent act against the defendant 1 of this case against the defendant 1 of this case shall be accepted with merit, and the main claim for the return of original property as restoration of the above real property shall be dismissed without merit, and the conjunctive claim for the return of value shall be accepted with merit, and the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the plaintiff's fraudulent act against the defendant 1 of this case as to the plaintiff 1 of this case and the conjunctive claim for the cancellation of the plaintiff 2 of this case to 5 of this case shall be dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jin-hee (Presiding Judge)