The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the event that an insolvent debtor transfers his/her own responsible property to a beneficiary through a litigation procedure and the judgment against him/her is finalized by a confession, etc. in a lawsuit filed by the beneficiary, or by a decision of recommending reconciliation, etc. to that effect, and accordingly, the registration of transfer of ownership, etc. on the beneficiary’s responsible property has been completed in the future, the agreement between the debtor and the beneficiary, which is the substantial cause of such series of acts, may constitute a fraudulent act detrimental

Meanwhile, in cases where a creditor is sentenced to the revocation of a fraudulent act that orders the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser to recover the responsible property with the revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is merely liable to reinstate the creditor due to the revocation of the fraudulent act, and the legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor is not formed.

Therefore, even if the registration of transfer of ownership completed through a final and conclusive judgment, etc. in the litigation procedures between the debtor and the beneficiary is cancelled by the restitution of the original state due to the revocation of fraudulent act, it cannot be said that it is contrary to or contradictory to the validity

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court first purchased each of the instant real estate by the Defendant’s father, taking into account the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

Inasmuch as it cannot be deemed that the Defendant has occupied or possessed each of the instant real estate as its owner’s intent, the fact that “the completion of the prescription period for acquisition by possession on March 31, 2012” with respect to each of the instant real estate was not recognized. Furthermore, the lower court filed a lawsuit against B, who is in excess of the obligation, seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of “the completion of the prescription period for acquisition by possession on March 31, 2012,” and the written reply to the purport that B