Induc Industries Development (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and six others (Attorney Lee Dong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 8 and 6 others (Attorney Park Jong-nam, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 22, 2005

Suwon District Court Decision 9Dahap8571 delivered on November 16, 2001

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants, which orders payment under the following, shall be revoked.

The Plaintiff

A. The defendants stated in the separate sheet No. 4 No. 1. "The amount to be returned to each defendant" No. 3,547,137,370 won, respectively;

B. Each Defendants indicated “Defendant” Nos. 2. through 14. The same list No. 2. through 14. The amount indicated “amount” in the same list;

and with respect to each of the above amounts, 5% interest per annum shall be paid from the day following the date of this decision to the date of full payment.

2. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation cost, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 7 and 13 shall be borne by the above defendants. The part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12

1. Purport of claim

A. Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 shall pay to the Non-party 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 an annual amount of KRW 1,750,000 to the plaintiff of the non-party 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and each of them shall be paid at the rate of KRW 6 per annum from July 1, 196 to

B. The “Defendant” list of the registration statement in the separate sheet No. 3 is revoked, each of the Defendants entered in the separate sheet No. 2, with respect to each real estate stated in the “subject matter” column of the above registration statement among the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and the relevant legal act is revoked.

C. The Plaintiff:

(1) No. 1. The Defendants indicated in the separate sheet No. 4 No. 3,547,137,370 won, respectively, in the order of “amount to be returned to each of the Defendant”;

(2) Each of the Defendants stated “Defendant” Nos. 2. through 14 of the same List No. 2. to “Defendant” shall be the amount indicated in the same List “amount”;

and with respect to each of the above amounts, 5% interest per annum shall be paid from the day following the date of this decision to the date of full payment.

(A) In the trial, the Plaintiff reduced the claim to Defendant 7 and 13 among the Defendants, and extended the claim to the rest of the Defendants)

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff: The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The Plaintiff

(1) No. 1. The Defendants indicated in the separate sheet No. 4 No. 3,547,137,370 won, respectively, in the order of “amount to be returned to each of the Defendant”;

(2) Each of the Defendants stated “Defendant” Nos. 2. through 14 of the same List No. 2. to “Defendant” shall be the amount indicated in the same List “amount”;

and with respect to each of the above amounts, 5% interest per annum shall be paid from the day following the date of this decision to the date of full payment.

B. Defendants: The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-1 through 48, Gap evidence 3-1-4, Gap evidence 4, 5-6, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 10 through 13, Gap evidence 16-1 through 3, Gap evidence 19-1, 2, 3, 70-1, 72-2, Gap evidence 72-1 through 12, Eul evidence 73-1 through 12, Eul evidence 73-1 and 12, non-party 1-2, the testimony of non-party 1-2, and the whole purport of the defendant's pleading against non-party 2 in the first instance trial.

(a) Granting priority to allotment of the Korea Land Corporation;

On December 195, the Korea Land Development Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land Corporation”) (hereinafter “Korea Land Development Corporation”) conducted a housing site development project for a zone of further development (hereinafter “Korea Land Development Corporation”) around 1992, granted the residents who had living basis in the said zone the right to preferentially purchase the land in the said zone of further development (hereinafter “the right to purchase the land in this case”).

(b) Formation of Hanam iceel;

(1) As above, 71 persons among the residents who acquired the instant water ownership (the number of the instant water ownership is 70 persons as a result of the acquisition by 1/2 each of the instant water ownership), among the residents who acquired the instant water ownership, shall exercise their rights together to gather that the ownership of the instant water is 71 persons (the number of the instant water ownership rights shall be 70 persons); the head of the association; the head of the association shall exercise the overall control over the affairs of the association; the head of the association; the head of the association shall exercise its authority over the general affairs of the association; the head of the association, the head of the association, the head of the association, and the head of the association shall be the head of the association, the head of the association, and the head of the association shall be the head of the association, and the head of the association shall be the head of the association, and the head of the association shall be the head of the non-party 1 (the head of the association shall be the head of the non-party 2).

(2) Afterwards, the term “Sengnam-si Native Family Association” changed the name of “saffra,” “cultural printer,” and “Hanam-si,” etc., and subsequently, on May 1, 1996, the general assembly opened a general meeting and partially corrected the above articles of association, thereby newly enacting the articles of association (A1-2) containing the following contents, and then appointing Defendant 11 (Defendant of the Supreme Court Decision) as the subsequent representative.

(A) The name shall be “Hanam-gu Assembly,” and the principal office shall be located in 524 and 524-1, Hanam-si, Hanam-si, with the aim of constructing, selling and leasing business facilities and neighborhood living facilities on the ground of 524 square meters and 587.3 square meters of 524 square meters and 524 square meters of Hanam-si, Hanam-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) The membership shall be a 1/70 equity or more of the land in this case or a person who has joined as a member upon delegation of the rights from the said owner.

(C) The “matters concerning the appointment and change of an officer”, “matters concerning the amendment of the articles of association and finance”, “land price to be borne by a member, and matters concerning the payment of loans”, etc. shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting by the attendance of a majority of the members and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present (the appointment or change of an officer shall be decided by the attendance of at least 2/3 of the members and with the affirmative vote of at least 2

(d) The officer shall appoint one representative, four directors, two auditors and one secretary, and the term of office shall be three years, and if the officer is vacant, the board of directors shall be appointed. The term of office shall be the remaining period of all the officers, and the public notice of the representative shall serve as the representative in the order of the oldest among the directors until the representative is appointed.

(E) The Assembly shall delegate to the board of directors the remainder of the affairs, such as borrowing and repayment of funds, disposal of buildings, etc. except as to the appointment and change of officers and the matters concerning the amendment and arbitration of the Articles of Incorporation.

(f) After completion of the new building, ① the amount of 31,00,000 won shall be deducted from the sale price for the members who wish to sell the building to the general public and ② the amount of 24,00,000 won shall be distributed to the members who demand cash and ③ the amount of 16,00,000 won shall be distributed to the members who demand withdrawal respectively.

(3) Meanwhile, as a result of changes in the composition of members due to the reasons such as transfer of ownership shares in the instant land acquired as follows, 50 out of 71 members at the time of “Hanam-si Neighborhood Cooperative” (hereinafter “Hanam-si”), the number of members of “Hanam-si Neighborhood Cooperative” (hereinafter “Hanam-si”), regardless of whether it was before or after the change, only 55 members, including Defendant 8, were remaining.

C. Conclusion of a contract for purchase and development agency of the instant land

(1) On June 17, 1994, Nonparty 2 walked 3,200,000 won per share of 1/70 shares from members of the Hanam Ocean and paid 220,764,90 won to the Korea Land Corporation as down payment. Nonparty 2 sold the instant land from the Korea Land Corporation to 2,207,649,000 won under the name of Nonparty 2 and 69, but the members alone did not have the ability to meet all costs such as land balance and construction costs. Nonparty 2 introduced a company with financial capacity to carry out the business by attracting a company with its own funds. On October 17, 1994, the following contents were entered into a contract with the Dongnam Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Land Corporation”) for the development and construction of the commercial building and the sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant development contract”).

(A) The name of the owner of the above commercial building is Hanam-gu.

(B) By November 30, 1994, Handongco shall complete a payment guarantee for the purchase and sale of the land of this case to the Korea Land Corporation.

(c)Korea-coin will act on behalf of others for the development of commercial buildings, construction and sale of buildings by inserting all expenses, such as design cost, authorization and permission cost, supervision cost, sales management cost, advertising promotion cost, transfer of ownership, etc.

(D) Hannam shall pay 1,00,000,000 won per month for the operating expenses of the association to Hanam-do, and upon completion of the sales project of the said commercial building, each member shall be paid 35,00,000,000 won for business profit and 3,153,780 won for contract deposit, and Hanam-do shall recognize the remainder of the total profits from the sales of the said commercial building as the profits from the business of Handong-si, excluding the sum of the above amounts to be paid by the members.

(E) Handongcoa shall pay 152,180,000 won to Hanam Hanamel as performance guarantee until October 15, 1994.

(f) If the contract has been terminated due to the negligence of the Republic of Korea, Haak shall not be liable for damages suffered by Hadongco due to the termination.

(2) On February 195, 1995 with the consent of the Haak-dong Haakel, the construction company changed the construction company from the construction company of the non-party 1, who had been originally designated as the construction company on April 1, 1995, to the non-party 5, who had completed the payment guarantee of the purchase and sale balance of the land of this case to the construction company of the non-party 5, 6, and the construction company of the first development agency.

(d) Conclusion of a contract for development agency with a commercial child;

(1) On May 15, 1995, Handongco drafted and submitted a written waiver (A7-1) to Hanam Ocean that “The first development agency contract of this case shall be terminated without any condition, and the right to settle the costs charged by Hadongco by consultation with the contractor under the re-contract with Hanam at that time shall be acquired by Hanam.”

(2) Accordingly, Nonparty 2 concluded an agency contract for the development and sale of a commercial building on behalf of the Haak-guel on behalf of the Haak-guel on the same day (hereinafter “instant two development agency contract”).

(A) Designation of the contractor of the commercial building as the contractor of the commercial building in question, and the name of the owner shall be the sub-contractor.

(b)The commercialization will act on behalf of the commercial building development and sale in advance for all costs required for the implementation of the project.

(C) In allocating business profits to members, the commercial luco shall pay 40,200,000 won per share of the land of this case (including refund 3,153,780 won per share of contract deposit) to the members who wish to make cash payments, and shall deduct the amount of 48,500,000 won per share of the above 1/70 shares from the sale price to be paid for the members who wish to distribute the goods in kind.

(D) No later than August 30, 1995, Pacific shall be paid KRW 10,000,000 out of the above-owned share of KRW 40,200 per 1/70 of the above-owned share of performance guarantee for its members until August 30, 1995.

(e) If the contract has been terminated due to the negligence of the luco, the Hanamel shall not compensate for the damage suffered by the lusia due to the termination.

(3) However, on October 1995, the construction company was changed to the non-party general cultural construction company (hereinafter “cultural construction”) on the 21st of the same month.

E. Conclusion of a contract for the sale of goods by proxy with a commercial child;

On October 195, 195, after the construction company was changed to a cultural construction, Nonparty 2 entered into a sales agency contract on behalf of the Haak-guel on behalf of the Haak-guel (hereinafter “the first sales agency contract of this case”) with the following contents (the date of the preparation of the contract shall be stated retroactively on May 15, 1995, which is the date of the conclusion of the second development agency contract of this case).

(1) The Hanamel entrusts the sale of the building of this case to the Morocco, and the Morocco is responsible for and completed the sale of the building of this case.

(2) On the basis of the sale of promotional materials, the production of the promotional materials for sale, the execution of the advertisement, and the resulting costs shall be borne, and on the other hand, the Hanam-Anel shall pay all the costs associated with the sale, such as the

(3) only if the sales contract has been concluded with luxco, Hanam ice shall pay the amount equivalent to 9% of the total sales price (excluding value added tax) under the pretext of the agency fees every time the sales price is received.

(4) If it is deemed difficult to achieve the goal of the purchase price due to the significant poor performance in the sale price, it may terminate the contract by settling the sale price and all of the costs with the commercial child.

F. Conclusion of a sales agency contract with the Plaintiff

In response, on January 1, 1996, Hannam required the non-party 6 to exclude the non-party 6 from the sales agency contract of the first sale agency contract of the Pacifician. On the other hand, on January 1, 1996, Han Nam transferred the status of the first sale agency contract of the Hannamia to the plaintiff company solely established with the non-party 5, who was the co-representative of the lusia, together with the non-party 6, and at the same time, the non-party 2 newly concluded the sales agency contract of the same contents as the first sale agency contract of the Hannam Asia on behalf of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff.

G. Destruction of the contract for the second sale agency of this case

However, Defendant 11, who was a new representative of the Hanam ice, following the resolution of the general meeting on May 1, 1996, moved the office of the Hanam ice into the fourth floor of the neighboring building where the office is located due to the bankruptcy of cultural construction on the 20th of the same month, along with all documents related to the business, on the ground that the sale performance of the plaintiff was poor, and the contract relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff was interrupted.

H. Completion of the building of this case and registration of ownership preservation

After doing so, Defendant 11 completed an aggregate building (hereinafter “the building of this case”) such as the indication of “the building” in the attached Table 2 list on August 9, 1997, and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of Hai-riel on September 2, 1997, after completing the construction of the building of this case on May 27, 1996, Maho-young Co., Ltd., Ltd., Maok Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd. on Jan. 3, 1997, and the sale unit event was changed to new students on June 13, 1996.

2. Determination on revocation of fraudulent act and claim for return of the value

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) The existence and scope of the preserved claim

(A) The settlement balance portion

(1) Any occurrence of the obligation to settle the Hanamel.

As seen earlier, under the circumstances where it is difficult to establish funds necessary for the construction and sale of the instant building, including the purchase price of the instant land, and the operation of the lower ice, the lower court determined that, at the time of the conclusion of the sales agreement with the Plaintiff, it would have caused the execution of each of the instant vicarious execution contracts by selecting the agency and having it bear the expenses, and that, at the time of the conclusion of the first development agreement with the lower dong 100,000 sales agreement, it would cover all of the expenses for the implementation of the instant vicarious execution. The lower 35,00,00 won and the refund money for the sales of the instant land were to be paid to each of the members of the lower 20,000 won from the sales agreement after the completion of the sales agreement with the lower 30,000 won and the sales agreement with the lower 153,780 won and the remainder of the sales agreement with the lower 10,000,000 won and the remainder of the sales agreement with the lower 20,70,0,0707,07, etc.

In addition, as seen earlier, the right to settle the costs charged to the Plaintiff on May 15, 1995 was transferred to the Pacificia. On January 1, 1996, the right to dispose of the costs charged to the Plaintiff again transferred the status of the first sale agency contract to the Plaintiff on January 1, 1996, the non-party 5, as the representative director, has maintained the second development agency contract with the Hanamnam-si, and the transactional relationship with the second sale agency contract with the Hanam-do, and the second sale agency contract with the Hanam-do, and the second sale agency contract with the Hanam-si, as seen earlier, were followed after the argument, not directly concluded by the plaintiff, but the obligation to pay business profits to the members under the second development agency contract with the Kanam-si, and the obligation to pay part of the part of the second sale agency contract with the Kanam-si to the extent that the 2nd sale agency contract with the 2nd sale agency contract with the 1st sale agency contract was reversed.

(2) Scope of debts due to settlement;

Therefore, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have received the above evidence 15-1 to 10, Gap evidence 16-1 to 16-2, Gap evidence 17, Gap evidence 18-1 to 8, Gap evidence 19-2, 2, 3, and 20, Gap evidence 21-1 to 22, Gap evidence 22, 23-1 to 4, Gap evidence 24-1 to 5, Eul evidence 6-1 to 5-2, Gap evidence 6-1 to 5-6, Gap evidence 5-1 to 5-6, Gap evidence 27, evidence 28-1, Gap evidence 29 to 5-1 to 5-6, evidence 5-1 to 5-6, evidence 5-1 to 5-1 to 5-6, evidence 5-1 to 5-1 to 5-2, evidence 3, evidence 3-1 to 37, and evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 4 to 5-1 to 4

Therefore, it is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,464,113,715, which is the sum of each of the above amounts, as the settlement amount under each of the instant contracts. However, the Plaintiff is a part of the above expenses that the Plaintiff already received 598,129,400, out of the sales amount, as part of the above expenses, so the settlement amount that the Hanam Ocean bears to the Plaintiff would eventually remain KRW 865,984,315.

(B) Part of the sales agency fee

① Although the Plaintiff was able to obtain sales proceeds of KRW 1,629,720,00 (3,018 square meters of the sales area of the instant building x 6,000,000 per square meter x 9% of the sales volume of the instant building x 6,000,000 per square meter x 9% of the sales volume of the instant building) upon completion of the sales contract for the instant building if the sales agency contract was maintained properly, the Plaintiff asserts that, as such, the Plaintiff was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the entire damages.

In this case, the plaintiff agreed to pay the amount equivalent to 9% of the total sale price (excluding value-added tax) to the plaintiff under the pretext of agency fees only if the Hanam-iceel entered into a contract for the second sale of the building of this case at the time of the conclusion of the contract for the second sale of this case. Thus, unless there is any assertion or proof that the plaintiff entered into the contract for the sale of the building of this case and actually received the sale price from the buyer, the above reasons alone cannot be deemed to have the obligation to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above commission. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

② In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that “The above 01 through 03 of the instant building was 5,00, 80, 68, 472,000, 11 of the 1st floor to Nonparty 7, 75, 70, 70, 700, 106 of the 1st floor to Nonparty 92, 34, 70, 100, 100, 106 of the 1st floor to Nonparty 10, 306, 70, 70, 70, 706, 70, 706, 706, 70, 706, 706, 70, 700, 700, 805, 13 of the 2nd floor to Defendant 106, 305, 1985, 106, 2005, 2005, 13 of the 2nd floor to Defendant 18.

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 29, Gap evidence No. 66-1 through 13 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff concluded a sales contract with those other than non-party No. 16 among these people, and then reversed all the above sales contract. However, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted, since it is hard to believe that the above sales contract was unfairly reversed even if there were no grounds for termination due to the intention of the sub-party No. 70-2, which seems that the above sales contract was unfairly reversed due to the intention of the sub-party No. 16.

(C) Judgment on the defendants' assertion

① As to this, the Defendants asserted that “In the event a contract is terminated due to the negligence of the company like the Plaintiff company at the time of the conclusion of the development agency contract of this case 1 and 2, it did not perform the duty of the Plaintiff to pay business profit of KRW 40,20,000 under the development agency contract of this case, and only KRW 675,273,805, which is a part of the intermediate payment on the land of this case, was paid to the Korea Land Corporation.” On the other hand, if the contract is terminated due to the negligence of the company as the same company as the Plaintiff company at the time of the conclusion of the development agency contract of this case 1 and 2, it was agreed not to compensate for the damages suffered by the company as a result of its termination, it did not have any obligation against the Plaintiff.”

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff failed to properly perform the sale business, and it is difficult to deem that the obligation to pay the business profit as alleged by the Defendants exists by entering into a contract for the second sale of the instant sales agency with the Hanam Ocean as well as it is difficult to deem that the obligation to pay the business profit as alleged by the Defendants exists, and in the absence of any evidence to acknowledge that the Hanam Ocean declared its intention to cancel the contract for the reason of the nonperformance of the obligation through the prior period during which the contractual relationship with the Plaintiff was maintained with the Plaintiff

(2) The Defendants asserted that “An amount of KRW 684,485,90 in addition to the amount of KRW 589,129,400 paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff who was paid the said amount.” However, the entries of the evidence No. 1-4 and No. 29 are insufficient to acknowledge the said assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

③ Determination on the claim for extinction of prescription

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as of 29, No. 30, No. 30, No. 8 of the judgment).

(2) The act of disposing of the property of the Hanamel.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 72-1 through 29, Gap evidence Nos. 75, 84, Gap evidence Nos. 86, and 87-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements No. 86, No. 87. Hanamel entered the registration of ownership preservation of the building of this case on Sep. 2, 1997 and entered the registration of ownership preservation in each of the above items No. 413, 601, 609, 701, 715, and 803 in the list No. 3 of the list No. 4 of the list No. 3 of the list No. 4 of the real estate in this case in the name of the defendant and the defendant No. 17 and the defendant No. 9 of this case in each of the items No. 3 of the above list "No. 3 of the list No. 1, 3 of the members' rights or each of the items of the defendant's right to claim distribution.

(3) The excess of the obligations of the Hanamel

In light of the above evidence and evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 98, 99, Gap evidence No. 102-1, 2, 103, Gap evidence No. 104-1, 105, 106, 107, and 108, and the whole purport of the arguments as to the Supreme Court of this Court and the fact-finding with respect to the above court's appraisal of the above company's assets and construction charges, Han Nam has been paid with new company's promissory notes issued by the above company. However, since May 197, 197, the above company had the capability to pay the above bonds with its own ability to pay the above bonds at the time of disposal, in light of the fact that some of the unsold real estate units were unsold in the building of this case at the time of disposal of the real estate of this case, the amount of the sale price claim against the non-party 1, 106, 107, and 100, 300, 190, 197, etc.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

(1) According to the above facts, it is recognized that the Defendants concluded a sales contract, etc. with regard to each of the instant real estate while the Hanam Ocean exceeded its obligation, and completed a provisional registration of ownership transfer registration or ownership transfer registration with respect to each of the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act causing the lack of common creditors’ joint security. In light of the facts as seen earlier, it is deemed that the Hanam Ocean was well aware of the circumstances that it would prejudice the Plaintiff due to the act of disposal of each of the instant real estate, and (3) the Defendants, the beneficiaries, are presumed to have expressed their intent

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1) Whether the exclusion period has expired (this part of the security claim)

As to this, the Defendants asserted that “Although the conclusion of each of the above reservations or sales contracts constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 2, 1999 when the exclusion period of one year has elapsed from September 25, 1997, which was known to the Plaintiff, and thus, seeking revocation of the said fraudulent act and restitution of the original status of the Plaintiff Company is unlawful.”

However, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for cancellation", which is the starting point of the exclusion period under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code, is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the debtor conducts a disposal act of the property, and that such a juristic act is an act prejudicial to the creditor. In other words, it is required to find it difficult to fully satisfy the claim due to the deficiency in the joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already in the short condition, and further, it is necessary to find out the fact that the debtor had the intention of deception (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7079 delivered on March 24, 2005).

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 72-1 through 29, Gap evidence Nos. 77-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 3, and Eul evidence No. 3, the plaintiff obtained a certified copy of the register of the building of this case on September 12, 1997 and obtained each transfer registration of ownership transfer registration stated in Appendix Nos. 3 and IV "registration" in the attached Table No. 3, and subsequently, on September 25, 1997, the plaintiff can file an application for provisional seizure against the above 28 real estate (including 101, 204, 305, 306do of the attached Table No. 3 of the Registration Records No. 3), which still remains in the name of Hanam ice, and the provisional seizure decision No. 1979, Oct. 16, 1997; and the provisional seizure decision No. 3060, Oct. 17, 1997.

However, as to the fact that the plaintiff had already known about September 25, 1997 that each reservation or sales contract was detrimental to the plaintiff, the testimony of the non-party 1 witness of the first instance court, consistent with it, is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to find it otherwise. [In full view of the whole arguments in the statement No. 1-4 and No. 1-2, the plaintiff may be held liable for the individual of the union members on the basis of the remaining "the claim against the sub-party 41 of the sub-party 1, who recognized the substance of the sub-party 1 as the "cooperative under the Civil Act", and around 1997, the plaintiff could not be held liable for the damages against the 41 member of the sub-party 1 from among the members of the sub-committee 1997. However, the above court rejected the plaintiff's claim for construction work on the ground that the act of the sub-party 1's debt belongs to the association itself, and it cannot be found that the plaintiff's claim belongs to the association 1994.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

(2) Whether the person is a bona fide beneficiary

In addition, the Defendants asserted that “The act of disposal of real estate in the Hanamel was acquired in good faith without knowing that it was a fraudulent act at the time of entering into each of the instant agreements or sales contracts.” However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion, but rather, the Defendants knew of the circumstances that the act of disposal of each of the instant real estate in the Hanam Ocean would prejudice other creditors due to the act of disposal of each of the instant real estate in the Hanam ice, in light of the developments and timing of acquiring each of the instant real estate in question, and the relationship with the Defendants and the Hanam ice, etc.

(d) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

In a case where a juristic act on a certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, the revocation of the fraudulent act and the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership shall be ordered: Provided, That in a case where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original property, compensation shall be ordered equivalent to the value of the object of the fraudulent act as a performance of the duty to restore it, and such compensation shall be ordered to compensate for the value within the extent that the fraudulent act is constituted as joint security of the general creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40286, Dec. 12, 2003).

However, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 3-1 through 48, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer in their future, and then acknowledged the fact that the original return to the Plaintiff became legally impossible, barring any special circumstances, such as the entry in the “reasons for cancellation” list of the attached Table No. 3, by establishing a right to collateral security or a right to lease on a deposit basis or by establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis, or by losing ownership due to auction.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to return to the Plaintiff money equivalent to the value of each of the instant real estate as at the date of the date of the closing of argument in the trial, as a performance of the duty to restore to the original state following the revocation of fraudulent act. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the market price appraisal by Nonparty 19, the market price (excluding the price of a site right) of each of the instant real estate on May 31, 2004 near the date of the closing of argument in the trial.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment with respect to each of the above amounts as stated in the "amount" column of attached Table 4 corresponding to the market price of each of the real estate in this case that they acquired by them by fraudulent act (Provided, That the Defendants’ obligation to compensate for the amount as stated in No. 1, 3, and 11 is in in an in

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of fraudulent act and restitution against the defendants shall be accepted on the grounds of the reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted and the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above amount of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and each of the above amounts shall be ordered to the defendants, and the defendants' appeal shall be dismissed.

[Attachment 1, 2, and 3]

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)

In case of being unable to sign and seal by judge training