1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

Defendant and Defendant Defendant Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. The progress of the instant lawsuit and the subject matter of the adjudication of this Court after remand;

A. On December 6, 2013, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that: (a) at the time of the Defendant’s and the Intervenor’s consultation on division of property following divorce on December 6, 2013, the Defendant’s receiving more than 50% of the real value of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the division of property exceeds a considerable degree; and (b) determined that the Defendant’s receiving as the division of property the amount exceeding 2,100,000,000 of the real value of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) exceeds a reasonable degree; and (c) revoked the division of property between the Defendant and the Intervenor within the limit of KRW 1,050,000,000, which was concluded on December 6, 2013; and (d) rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against each part of the judgment of the first instance, and the lower court prior to remanded the entire agreement on division of property on the ground that it is not reasonable as division of property. The Plaintiff’s appeal was accepted, and the part regarding the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance regarding the agreement on division of property between the Defendant and the Intervenor on December 6, 2013 is revoked within the limit of KRW 2,100,000,000. The Defendant revoked the part regarding the agreement on division of property between the Defendant and the Intervenor on December 6, 2013. The lower court rendered a favorable judgment to the Plaintiff by changing the Plaintiff’s agreement on division of property to the amount of KRW 2,10,000,00

(3) The Defendant appealed against this, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment below before remanding the Defendant, on the ground that even if each of the collateral agreements between the Co-Defendant E, F, G, H and the Intervenor, which was concluded on the instant real estate prior to the agreement on division of property, was revoked by fraudulent act, the Plaintiff may seek compensation for the value thereof after cancelling the agreement on division of property within the extent of the balance remaining after deducting the secured debt amount of the collateral under the name of E, F, G, and H from the value of the instant real estate.