Where the debtor sells the real estate trusted pursuant to the Trust Act for the purpose of securing his/her obligation to a third party, but the purchaser pays his/her obligation to the third party on behalf of the debtor and acquires ownership by terminating the trust contract, the scope of revocation of the above fraudulent act and the method of restitution.

If an obligor’s act of selling real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, the obligee may exercise the obligee’s right to revoke the sales contract and seek the recovery of the ownership of real estate, such as cancellation of the ownership transfer registration. However, in cases where the obligor’s act of selling real estate trusted under the Trust Act for the purpose of securing a third party’s obligation to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, if the purchaser reimburses a third party on behalf of the obligor, and is transferred the ownership of the real estate by terminating the trust contract, it is considerably difficult for the obligor to cancel the sales contract and restore the ownership of the real estate to the obligor before the termination of the trust contract. Accordingly, returning the ownership of the real estate itself to the obligor is contrary to equity because it would result in the recovery of the portion that is not originally secured by the general obligee’s joint security. Accordingly, the obligee is bound to claim for partial cancellation of the sales contract and compensation within the extent of the balance calculated by deducting the amount of obligation subrogated by the buyer from the value of the real estate. In the future, the buyer’s ownership transfer registration completed the intermediate process of ownership transfer for

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 96Da23207 delivered on October 29, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3530) Supreme Court Decision 97Da6711 delivered on February 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 727) Supreme Court Decision 98Da41490 delivered on September 7, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2066)

Korea Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Attorney Park Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gyeongdong Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 98Na14306 delivered on July 16, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

If an obligor’s act of selling real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, the obligee can seek the recovery of the ownership of real estate, such as cancellation of the sales contract by exercising the obligee’s right of revocation and cancellation of the ownership transfer registration. However, in cases where an obligor’s act of selling real estate trusted under the Trust Act for the purpose of securing a third party’s obligation to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, if the purchaser reimburses a third party on behalf of the obligor, and is transferred the ownership of the real estate by terminating the trust contract, it is considerably difficult for the obligor to cancel the sales contract and restore the ownership of the real estate to the status before the termination of the trust contract. Accordingly, returning the ownership of the real estate itself to the obligor is contrary to equity because it would result in recovery of the portion that is not originally secured by the general obligee’s joint security. Accordingly, the obligee is bound to claim for partial cancellation of the sales contract and compensation within the extent of the balance calculated by deducting the amount of obligation subrogated by the buyer from the value of the real estate. In the future, the buyer’s transfer registration of ownership was completed

In the same purport, the court below held that the real estate in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act to sell the real estate of this case (as the real estate of this case was sold to the defendant, which is the only property worth property in the immediately preceding bankruptcy, to the Korea Real Estate Trust Corporation. However, the real estate of this case was entrusted to the Korea Real Estate Trust Corporation pursuant to the Trust Act in order to secure the debt amount of KRW 2.5 billion to the new World Financial Corporation, and the defendant purchased the real estate from the Sejong Public Financial Corporation, as part of the loan amount, on behalf of the Sejong Public Financial Corporation, by repaying the loan amount of KRW 2.5 billion to the new Public Financial Corporation, and completed the registration of transfer due to the trust property in the future, after completing the registration of transfer of ownership due to the transfer of trust property in the name of the Sejong Public Financial Corporation, the plaintiff, the creditor of the Sejong Public Financial Corporation, as the creditor of the creditor of the creditor's right of revocation, cannot be reinstated to the defendant in the future, and the judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amount of the obligation amount of subrogation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)