1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff, which is cited additionally in the trial as follows.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following changes. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. 변경하는 부분 ◆ 제1심판결 7쪽 4 내지 6행을 다음과 같이 변경 『앞서 본 기초사실에 의하면 원고는 당심 변론종결일인 2016. 4. 27. 기준으로 D에 대하여 채권양수도부 채무변제(준소비대차)계약에 기하여 824,807,994원{= 원금 400,000,000원 이자 5,081,967원(2011. 11. 16.부터 2012. 2. 16.까지 연 5%의 비율로 계산한 약정이자) 지연손해금 419,726,027원(2012. 2. 17.부터 2016. 4. 27.까지 연 25%의 비율로 계산한 약정지연손해금)} 상당의 금전채권』 ◆ 제1심판결 12쪽 마지막행부터 16쪽 15행까지를 다음과 같이 변경 4. 사해행위취소 및 원상회복의 범위에 관한 판단

A. In principle, where a legal act on one of the real estates listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, cancellation of the fraudulent act and cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, etc. However, in the event of a fraudulent act with respect to a real estate on which a mortgage is established, such fraudulent act shall be established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate at the value of the real estate. Therefore, in a case where the registration of creation of a mortgage was cancelled due to repayment, etc. after the fraudulent act, ordering the cancellation of the fraudulent act and the restoration of the real estate itself would result in a violation of fairness and as it would result in ordering the restoration of the portion which was not initially the secured debt amount of the mortgage, to the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount from the value of the real estate.