beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the part corresponding to the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except where the judgment is added to the corresponding part of the judgment, or where the defendant's new or new argument is added to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with
[Supplementary measures taken by the Defendant] Article 252,124,686 of the first instance court’s first instance judgment (“252,124,686 won”) stated “252,224,686 won” in the third instance of the first instance judgment (“252,24,686 won” in relation to this part (Article 252,124,686). However, considering the overall context of the Defendant’s argument, “252,24,686 won” in calculation appears to be correct in light of the overall context of the Defendant’s argument.
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) At the time of the Defendant’s purchase of each of the instant real estate, G partially leased KRW 10 million as the lease deposit, and KRW 5 million as the lease deposit, respectively, at the time of the Defendant’s purchase of each of the instant real estate. Therefore, in the event that the instant sales contract was revoked on the ground of fraudulent act, and thus the compensation for the value would be ordered, the sum of the above lease deposit should be deducted in calculating the scope of compensation for the value thereof.
B. 1) In a case where a legal act on a certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, the said fraudulent act shall be revoked and the order shall be issued to recover the real estate itself, such as the cancellation of ownership transfer registration. However, in a case where the return of the original property is impossible or considerably difficult, it is necessary to order compensation equivalent to the value of the object of the fraudulent act as a performance of the duty to restore the original property. In a case of such equivalent compensation, it is necessary to order compensation for value within the scope of the establishment of the fraudulent act because it is a common