1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (as stated below 7 to 4 pages) is the same with the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (as stated below 2:7 to 4 pages), except that the lower court’s dismissal of “239,00,000 won” under the second sentence of the first instance judgment as “207,200,000 won”; and (b) thus,

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on this issue is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, the aforementioned part is cited pursuant to the main sentence

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The reasoning for this part of this court’s establishment of the preserved claim is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the pertinent part (from 8 up to 4 pages). Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

B. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the instant purchase and sale reservation constituted a fraudulent act because A, in fact, entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant, who is his father as to the instant real estate, which is the only property, and entered into a provisional registration. On the other hand, at the time of entering into the instant pre-sale agreement, A is an active property and the instant apartment C apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) other than the ownership of the instant real estate.

) Sales rights (hereinafter referred to as the “sale rights of this case” and “sale contract of this case” are the sales rights of this case and “sale contract of this case”).

(ii) The obligor’s act of disposing of the property by way of the pertinent legal doctrine has resulted in a decrease of the obligor’s total property so that the obligor’s joint security of claims is insufficient due to the obligor’s act to constitute a fraudulent act, namely, the obligor’s passive property should be more than the obligor’s active property.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da58963, Jan. 28, 2005). Whether an obligor’s insolvency in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act ought to be determined at the time of the fraudulent act.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64792 Decided January 12, 2012