1. C and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with respect to the Da Apartment-gu, Busan Metropolitan City D apartment E on September 11, 2012, KRW 107,894,271.

1. Basic facts constituting the premise for determination

A. On July 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C, etc. for the claim for the amount of indemnity and received a favorable judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da20118 Decided July 9, 2013, that “C, etc. jointly and severally with the Plaintiff and with respect to KRW 145,025,080 and KRW 141,365,088, the amount of KRW 15% per annum from March 6, 2013 to May 10, 2013, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” was the winning judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da20118). The said judgment became final and conclusive as of August 8, 2013.

B. However, on September 11, 2012, at the time when it was highly probable that the above obligation against the Plaintiff was established, C sold apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) emitted from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) under the order of Paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant on September 21, 2012, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership pursuant to the instant apartment on September 21, 2012. From that time to February 10, 2015, C completed the registration of creation of new collateral security right in the future of F Co., Ltd. with respect to the instant apartment, or the registration of creation of each initial collateral security right that was completed in the future of G Co., Ltd. was revoked.

(1) The apartment of this case sold to the defendant was excluded from the active property of C at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract; and see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da36478, 36485, May 27, 2005, etc.). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute between the parties, or the purport of the entire statements and arguments of Gap 1, 2 and 8 as well as the purport of the whole arguments.

2. Determination on both arguments

가. 위에서 인정한 사실관계에 의하면, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이 사건 매매계약은 C의 채권자인 원고 등에 대한 관계에서 사해행위에 해당하므로, 그 사해행위의 취소와 아울러 그에 따른 원상회복으로서 가액배상(∵ 사해행위 이후 담보권 변동)을 구하는 원고의 이 사건 각 청구는 모두 정당하다....