1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this part of the court’s reasoning is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of “basic facts,” and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. C concluded a mortgage contract of this case based on a false preserved claim in order to evade compulsory execution by general creditors, and thus, the mortgage contract of this case constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy and thus null and void.

B. Even if the instant mortgage contract was not null and void, the Plaintiff respectively lent C the amount of KRW 22,580,000,000 on April 21, 201, and KRW 22,000,000 on September 20, 2011, and owned C the said loan claim. However, C concluded the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant in excess of its obligation, and the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant mortgage contract, which is a fraudulent act, to preserve the said loan claim.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the assertion of invalidation due to false conspiracy, the Defendant has a claim against C for the price of goods equivalent to KRW 187,649,50,00, until June 9, 2011.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the mortgage contract of this case was concluded falsely without any secured claim, and there is no evidence to prove that the mortgage contract of this case was invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. 1) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Plaintiff’s assertion on revocation of fraudulent act is deemed as KRW 22,580,000 on April 21, 201 (hereinafter “No. 1”).

2) On September 20, 201, 200,000 won (hereinafter “two won”) was remitted from the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff to C.

B It is recognized that the Plaintiff transferred from the passbook in the Plaintiff’s name to C.

However, the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and testimony and arguments of F of the first instance trial witness.