1. The only real estate sale and fraudulent act;

2. Whether liability for damages exists where the duty to restore to the original state is impossible due to revocation of a fraudulent act;

1. The debtor's act of disposing of his sole real estate and replacing it with money easily consumed is a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, and thus the debtor's intent to cause harm is presumed and the purchaser has no bad faith.

2. Where the obligation to register the cancellation of ownership transfer as a result of the cancellation of a fraudulent act becomes impossible, the defendant shall be liable to compensate for damages in lieu of the impossibility of performance;

Article 406 of the Civil Act

66Da1535 delivered on October 4, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 2258 delivered on November 4, 196, Supreme Court Decision 14No38 delivered on June 13, 196, Supreme Court Decision 406Da31408 delivered on October 4, 196)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant

Daegu District Court (77Gahap851) in the first instance (7Gahap851)

(1) The original judgment is modified as follows.

(2) The purchase and sale contract of April 23, 197 between the defendant and the non-party 1 on the real estate stated in the attached list shall be revoked to the extent of KRW 16,024,00 in money.

(3) The Defendant paid to Plaintiff 1 KRW 3,924,00 in money, KRW 8,00,000, and KRW 4,100,00 to Plaintiff 2, respectively.

(4) The costs of lawsuit are divided into three parts through the first and second trials, and one of which is the remainder of the plaintiffs shall be borne by the defendant.

(5) Paragraph (3) may be provisionally executed.

The purport of this claim is as stated in Section 2 and Section 3 of the Disposition, and as a preliminary claim, the Defendant pays to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 3,924,00,000, KRW 8,000 to Plaintiff 2, and KRW 4,10,000 to Plaintiff 3, and the amount of KRW 4,10,000 to Plaintiff 3, respectively, from the day following the delivery of the copy of the correction of the claim as of February 2, 1980 to the day following the completion of the service.

The costs of lawsuit are to be assessed against the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution (it is to modify both the main and conjunctive claims in the trial).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

On April 25, 1977, provisional registration for the transfer of ownership was made on August 20, 197 with respect to the above real estate owned by Nonparty 1, and the ownership transfer registration was made on August 29, 197 with the ownership transfer registration as of August 20, 197, the ownership transfer registration was made on August 7, 197, and the ownership transfer registration was again made on December 20, 197, as of December 7, 197, as of December 7, 197, as of December 7, 197, as to the above real estate owned by Nonparty 1, 200 won to the Defendant, and as of December 7, 197, the facts that the ownership transfer registration was made on July 7, 197, 200 to Defendant 1, as of June 7, 200, the plaintiffs 1, 300 evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 97, as to each of the above real estate.

The defendant's disposal of the above real estate at the time of the disposal of the above real estate was 10,00,000 won, 7,282,139 won, 5,700 won, 300 won, 4,950,000 won, 30 won, 9,000 won, 30 won, 4,950,000 won, 9,000 won, 30 won, 9,000 won, 9,00 won, 9,000 won, 9,00 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 30,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 30,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won, 9,000 won.

Therefore, in this case, there is no evidence to find that the non-party 1's disposal act was unaware of the fact that the non-party 1's disposal act harms the plaintiffs who are creditors at the time of the acquisition of the real estate from the non-party 1, and there was no negligence, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the above sale contract between the non-party 1 and the defendant within the scope of

Furthermore, as the duty to restore to the duty of restoration following the cancellation of the above sales contract, the obligation to register the provisional registration of the defendant's name and the cancellation of the principal registration, as seen earlier, shall be the registration name of the defendant's name with respect to the real estate in this case, in the future of the non-party 2 as of August 29, 197. Thus, the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 3,924,000, the amount of KRW 8,000,000 to the plaintiff 2, and the amount of KRW 4,10,000,000 to the plaintiff 3 as compensation in lieu of the impossibility of performance.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case seeking the cancellation of the above sales contract and the payment of the above money within the scope of the amount of the claim are well-grounded, and therefore, they will be accepted without further determination as to the remaining conjunctive claims. Since the original judgment is unfair in a different conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 89, Article 90, Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the provisional execution with respect to the payment of the costs of lawsuit, and Article 19 of the same Act with respect to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines