The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff shall be revoked, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the event that a real estate on which a mortgage is established is transferred to a fraudulent act, such fraudulent act shall be established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount from the value of the real estate. Therefore, in the event that a registration of establishment of a mortgage is cancelled by repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act may be revoked and claimed for compensation for the value of the real estate within the extent

2. On October 29, 1996, the lower court revoked the fraudulent act within the scope of the amount obtained by deducting the full maximum debt amount from the value of the instant real estate from the maximum debt amount (which is less than the Plaintiff’s claim amount), on the ground that there was no assertion as to the actual debt amount at the time of cancellation of the establishment registration of the instant real estate, on the ground that the instant real estate, on which the right to collateral security was established, was transferred to a fraudulent act and then revoked the establishment registration of the said real estate, and ordered to compensate for its equivalent value with restitution.

3. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the court below, it is recognized that the actual amount of collateral security at the time of the fraudulent act was not nonexistent based on the fact inquiry result.

1) As to the instant real estate subject to the revocation of a fraudulent act, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day on June 29, 2015 under the Defendant’s name. At the time, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 4, 2008 with the creditor Company B and the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, and the registration of ownership transfer was revoked on July 10, 2015 after the transfer of ownership, and thereafter, the registration of ownership transfer was completed again on July 14, 2015 with respect to the instant real estate. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the sales contract on June 29, 2015 for the instant real estate was a fraudulent act, and filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation thereof, and the judgment of the court of first instance.