Whether it is a fraudulent act to provide a debtor with the security of another debt exceeding the market price of the real estate which is the only property of the debtor.

Even if the debtor provided his own real estate as security for another debt exceeding the market price and made a special contract for payment in kind, it cannot be said that the debtor caused a decrease in the general property status of the debtor. Therefore, it cannot be said that the agreement is a fraudulent act by specifying it.

Article 424 of the former Civil Code

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant

Each case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

원고등 소송대리인은 원판결을 취소한다. 단기 4287.9.13. 소외 1과 피고간에 체결한 광주시 충장로 2가 2번지의 6 대 49평 8합 및 동 번지상 목조와즙 2계건 상점 급 주택 1동 건평 30평 8합, 2계건평 14평 6합에 대한 매매계약은 이를 취소한다. 피고는 원고등에게 우 부동산에 대하여 단기 4287.9.17. 광주지방법원 등기수부 제4737호로써 한 동 4287.9.13.자 매매에 인한 소유권이전의 가등기 및 동 4288.1.14. 광주지방법원 등기수부 제107호로써 한 동 4287.9.13.자 매매에 인한 소유권이전등기의 각 말소등기절차를 이행하라. 소송비용은 제1,2심 공히 피고의 부담으로 한다라는 판결을 구하고 피고 소송대리인은 주문 제1항 동지의 판결을 구하다. 원고등 소송대리인은 청구원인으로서 소외 1에 대하여 원고 1은 단기 4287.9.19. 금 126,000환, 동년 7.22. 금 99,000환, 동년 7.30. 금 398,000환 합계 원금 623,000환을 각 이식은 월 1할 5분 변제기일은 각 대부일부터 1개월 후로 정한 대부채권을 취득하고 원고 2는 단기 4287.7.7. 금 132,000환, 동년 7.10. 금 65,000환, 동년 8.19. 금 650,000환 합계 원금 847,000환을 각 이식은 월 1할 5푼 변제기일은 각 대부일로부터 1개월후로 정한 대부채권을 취득하고 원고 안희숙은 단기 4287.7.20. 금 300,000환을 이식은 월 1할 5푼 변제기일은 동년 8.20.로 정한 채권을 취득하였고 원고등 이외에도 동 소외인에게 대하여 다수의 채권자가 있어 동 소외인은 금 천수백만환의 채무를 부담하고 있었던 바 소외 1은 원고등 외 각 채권자를 해할 목적으로 피고와 통모하여 피고로부터 금 2,000,000환의 새로운 대부를 받는다는 명목하에 피고외 일부 채권자에 대한 채무변제를 위하여 기 유일한 재산인 전기 청구취지기재의 본건 부동산을 단기 4287.9.13. 피고에게 매려특약부로 매도하고 피고 역시 서상 원고등 채권자를 해할 목적으로 소외 1과 통모하여 이를 매수하여 담보 우는 대물변제라는 구실로 단기 4287.9.17. 광주지방법원수부 제4737호로써 소유권이전의 가등기와 동 4288.1.14. 광주지방법원수부 제107호로써 소유권이전의 본등기를 각 피고명의에 완료하였으므로 원고등은 소외 1과 피고간의 전기 매매계약을 취소함과 동시에 피고에 대하여 전기 본건 부동산에 대한 소유권이전의 가등기 및 동 본등기의 각 말소등기절차를 구하기 위하여 본소 청구에 지하다 진술하고 피고의 답변사실중 소외 1이 본건 부동산을 매도할 당시 피고에게 본건 부동산에 대한 소유권이전등기절차서류 일체를 완비하여 교부하였다는 사실은 이를 인정하나 기타 피고답변을 부인하고 본건 부동산의 시가는 단기 4287.9.13. 당시에 있어 금 90,000환, 동 4288.1.14. 당시는 금 8,000,000환 현재는 금 7,000,000환이며 본건 부동산은 불가분물이며 피고가 그 주장과 같이 소외 1에게 대부키로 한 금 2,000,000환도 실제는 현금으로 금 1,190,000환만을 대부하고 잔금 810,000환은 피고등의 계채권으로 고리계산하에 즉석에서 상쇄공제한 것이니 심히 부당한 것이며 가사 피고주장과 같이 소외 1이 피고에게 대물변제를 하였다 할지라도 본건 부동산의 매도대금을 금 14,513,850원으로 정한 이상 기 이하인 금 6,476,565환 채무의 대물변제로는 할 수 없는 것이니 이는 무효일 것이며 가사 불연이라면 동 계약은 요소의 착오가 될 것이고 가사 불연이라면 공서양속에 위반된 계약이라 할 것이니 무효이라 항쟁하고, 피고 소송대리인은 답변으로서 원고등 주장사실중 본건 부동산이 소외 1의 유일한 재산이었던 점 및 각 원고등 주장일시에 피고가 소외 1과의 간 매매를 원인으로 본건 부동산에 대한 소유권이전의 가등기 및 동 본등기를 완료한 사실은 각 이를 인정하나 기타 사실은 전부 이를 부인한다.

In other words, Nonparty 1 had a large amount of deposit obligation to be paid up to September 13, 287 with respect to the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10 as to the non-party 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, as to the non-party 1's private transfer relation, plus the deposit obligation to the non-party 9 and the non-party 12,513,850 shall be paid up to September 13, 287, with a large amount of deposit obligation to be paid up to the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, with a view to paying a differential amount of deposit obligation, the non-party 1 had a duty to pay up to 12,513,850 shall be paid up to 100,000 won for the non-party 9's total amount of deposit.

1. The real estate owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 shall be offered as a security for the amount of gold 14,513,850 equivalent to the loans of 12,513,850 and 2,000,000.

2. Until December 19, 207, 428.12.2, 40.2, non-party 1, 60.2, non-party 4, 60, 600, 600, 600, 600, 600, 600, 600, 600, 60, 600, 60, 600, 60, 600, 60, 600, 60, 600, 60, 600, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60, 60

As evidence, the attorney of the plaintiff et al. submitted the evidence Nos. 1-2, 11, 12, 13, 14 of the court below's witness, and the non-party Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 of the above evidence Nos. 3 through 2 of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 and the defendant's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3 of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 and submitted the testimony of the court below to the non-party Nos. 4, 2, 3 of the above evidence No. 2-1 to 3 of the above evidence No. 2, and the non-party No. 16 and the non-party No. 6 of the above evidence No. 1-2 of the court below and the non-party No. 6 of the above evidence No. 1-2 of the court below are admitted.

At the time of September 13, 4287, when the plaintiff et al. claimed in each plaintiff et al. against the non-party 1, it is sufficient to recognize it by the non-party 1's testimony, and there is no counter-proof such as sub-arguing that the plaintiff et al. had a claim including a total principal of 1,770,000 won and a transplant thereof.

The non-party 1 completed the provisional registration of the transfer of ownership of real estate in the name of the defendant on September 17, 1999 and the principal registration of the transfer of ownership of real estate in the name of the defendant on January 14, 4288 and the fact that the non-party 1 delivered the defendant with the full completion of all the registration documents of the transfer of ownership of real estate in the name of the defendant on September 13, 4287 at the time of the agreement with the defendant on September 13, 4287, by contract with the defendant on September 17, 2007.

8.9.13 of short-term 427.13, and after the conclusion of the contract on this real estate between the non-party 1 and the defendant 4, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 had no dispute over the establishment of the parties concerned as to the non-party 1, 3, 2-1 and the non-party 1-2 of evidence Nos. 16 (1, 2), the non-party 4, 3, 6's testimony and the non-party 11, 12, 14 and 15's testimony as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's total amount of 0.5's interest on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's total amount of 0.5's interest on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's interest on the non-party 4 at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the non-party 1 and the defendant 2's interest on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's interest.

In addition, the market price of the real estate in this case was reasonable at the time of September 13, 4287 to KRW 5,000 through KRW 6,000,000 as of September 13, 4287, it can be recognized by the testimony of the non-party 16, and the non-party 1's testimony of this point is that the non-party 1's testimony of this point is not a member

In other words, this case’s real property is the only property of Nonparty 1, even if it is the non-party 1’s own property, and the non-party 1, who is the representative of the non-party 9 on September 13, 287, has a considerable amount of the market price of 5,00,000 through 6,00,000,000,000 at the time, and at least 4,476,5650,000,000,000,000, which was newly issued by the non-party 9 for the purpose of increasing commercial capital and settling other existing debts at the time, cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, etc. on the ground that the agreement was made by providing the non-party 1 as a security for the debt amounting to 6,47,565,00,000, which cannot be deemed to cause a decrease in the general property under his own condition.

Although the non-party 1 was clear that he would prejudice the creditor of the plaintiff et al. and concluded this contract with the defendant, the defendant was sufficient to recognize it by the testimony of the non-party 6, 4, 2, 3, etc. and against this, the testimony of the non-party 1, 11, 13, 14, and 15 of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 11, 13, 14 and the non-party 15 shall be the sea where the party

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the principal contract between the plaintiff et al. and the defendant cannot be seen as a fraudulent act. The plaintiff et al. again dismiss the provisional registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate and the claim for cancellation of the principal registration of this case against the defendant on the premise that the principal contract between the non-party 1 and the defendant has been set at KRW 14,513,950, so long as the original contract between the plaintiff et al. and the defendant has been null and void, even though the contract is not reasonable, it is invalid because it is against the mistake of elements or public order and good morals, but it is recognized on the letter that the principal contract between the non-party 1 and the defendant is not a fraudulent act. Thus, the invalidity of the plaintiff et al., which is irrelevant to the plaintiff et al.'s claim for this case, is without merit, and all of the judgment of the court below is dismissed, and it is reasonable to this effect, and it is dismissed by the application of Article 384 and Article 895 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yang Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)

[Omission]

The judge's key supporting is the absence of a business trip, which is unable to sign.