1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on addition

A. In light of the background and time when the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on the instant real estate claimed by the Plaintiff, the date of the instant mortgage contract ought to be deemed as July 6, 2012, which was the date of the establishment registration of a mortgage. As of this point, the debtor C was in excess of his/her liability, and even if not, offering the instant real estate, which is the only property of the debtor C, to a specific creditor, constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the instant mortgage contract constitutes a fraudulent act.

B. 1) Determination of the legal doctrine as to when a legal act constituting a fraudulent act was committed should be based on the date on which such fraudulent act was committed. However, barring any other special circumstance, determination of whether such fraudulent act was actually committed, centering on the date on which the grounds for registration appears to have been based on a disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da41589, Nov. 8, 2002; 2007Da28819, 2826, Feb. 25, 2010). In addition, in order to constitute a fraudulent act by providing security to a certain creditor, it is necessary to determine that the act would cause a result of reducing the joint security of other general creditors by allowing the debtor to be given preferential reimbursement compared to other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da47106, 4713, 47120, Feb. 14, 2008).