1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As to C, the Plaintiff has a claim of KRW 34,670,000 based on the No. 233 of the No. 2014 Document drawn up on April 25, 2014 as a notary public G office with respect to C.

B. On November 7, 2014, C entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the instant real estate, which was the sole property owned by it, in KRW 161,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on November 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 9, fact inquiry results against the Court Administration Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The instant sales contract that disposes of the instant real estate, the sole substance of the Plaintiff’s assertion, to the Defendant, should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. Since the registration of establishment of mortgage was revoked after the instant real estate was established after the instant sales contract, and restitution should be made by means of compensation for value. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 34,670,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) Determination (1) Whether a fraudulent act is constituted constitutes a fraudulent act by bringing about the reduction of the total property of C, which is the debtor, and causing or deepening the shortage of joint security of claims, and the defendant's bad faith, which is the debtor C, is presumed to be each presumed to be a beneficiary, unless there are other special circumstances.

(2) The Defendant’s bona fide defense (A) is a bona fide beneficiary, since the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract through a normal procedure through a real estate brokerage office.

(B) The debtor and the beneficiary's good faith are whether or not.