1.The judgment of the first instance court shall be modified upon a request for change in exchange at the trial as follows:

Defendant B.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] 3 8 to 9 of the 3rd party shall be as follows.

C. From the auction procedure for the voluntary auction of the instant real estate in progress with respect to the instant real estate, a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 7,679,232 to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, on June 16, 2016, who was the mortgagee of the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding results against Daejeon Jung-gu Office, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows.

Therefore, the instant contract entered into by the Defendant and B should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. It should be restored to its original state, and the Defendant should transfer to B the right to claim dividend payment of KRW 7,679,232 as a mortgagee in the Daejeon District Court I, J(Dual) auction of real estate, and notify the Republic of Korea thereof.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim that has been changed in exchange in this court is justified, and the defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance is without merit, but the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained by the claim that has been changed in exchange in this court, and it is so decided as per Disposition.