The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. An act of an obligor in excess of his/her obligation to provide his/her own real estate to any one of the creditors as mortgage for claims does not constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, except in extenuating circumstances; however, it is the best way for an obligor to continue his/her business by financing funds in a situation in which it is difficult to continue his/her business due to financing, and in cases where the obligor provided certain creditors with real estate as collateral and received new funds additionally, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the act of creation of

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the purpose and economic meaning of a trust agreement between a new creditor and a creditor who provides a new fund in lieu of the aforementioned security right and the third party designated by such creditor and the registration of ownership transfer based on a trust agreement shall be equally applied. Whether such method of trust is a deadly established ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account all relevant circumstances, including a claim and an obligation at the time of the trust agreement, the details and purpose of the trust, the economic meaning of the trust, the place of using the fund provided through the trust, and whether there was a new obstacle to the effective compulsory execution or satisfaction of other claims in relation to other general creditors.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da42874, Oct. 23, 2008; Supreme Court Order 2009Ma1176, May 23, 2011). However, in relation to a debtor who has already been in excess of his/her obligation and his/her ordinary creditors, it may be actually utilized for business activities.