1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff shall be against the defendant corresponding to the revoked part.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff, who is a doctor, requested the Daegu Provincial Police Agency to investigate the fact that he/she was employed by a non-qualified D to establish a medical institution and provided medical services.

On April 23, 2012, the Daegu District Police Agency was employed by C from November 3, 2010 to July 6, 2011, and sent to the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office the suspicion of the crime that C performed medical practice at the "F Hospital" located in the 6 and 7th floor of the Daegu-gun E-building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff notified C of the scheduled recovery of the medical care benefit cost paid to F Hospital, and notified C of the recovery decision of KRW 418,260,070 on August 6, 2012.

C With respect to the Defendant on December 4, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was completed as of the same registry office on the ground of the pre-sale agreement (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) signed on December 12, 2012 with respect to the land owned by Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Sung-gun (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was completed as of December 12, 2012 as of the Seo-gu District Court Branch of Seo-gu Branch Branch of the Seo-dong District Court (17884) and the sales agreement (hereinafter “instant sales agreement”) dated February 1, 2013 as of February 26, 2013.

C was in excess of the debt due to the amount of debt exceeding the assets held at the time of completing the provisional registration and the registration of transfer of ownership as above.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-3, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 13-1, Eul's assertion that Eul sold real estate of this case to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, as an act of insufficient or deepening joint security for general creditors including the plaintiff, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary.

Therefore, the contract for sale and purchase of this case shall be revoked, and the defendant shall restore it to its original state.