Of the part against the defendant in the judgment below, the part against the defendant shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the grounds of appeal as to the part of revocation of fraudulent act, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of fraudulent act seeking revocation of the mortgage contract of this case on the ground that the conclusion of the mortgage contract of this case with the Defendant regarding the real estate in excess of the obligation between B and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors including the Plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

2. As to the ground of appeal on the part of the objection against distribution

A. Although the debtor created a collateral security agreement on the real estate owned by a specific creditor in order to secure the obligation to a specific creditor, the contract to establish a collateral security was revoked on the ground that it was a fraudulent act, if the creditor obtained a decision of provisional seizure with the secured claim above as the preserved claim and lawfully made a demand for distribution at the auction procedure on the above real estate before the completion period to demand a distribution, it shall not be entitled to receive a distribution from the auction procedure on the above real estate, but it shall be possible to receive a distribution in the status of a legitimate

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107818 Decided March 27, 2014). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and records, on March 7, 2013, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered into a mortgage agreement on the instant real estate owned by the deceased to secure the deceased’s obligation to the Defendant, and on March 8, 2013, the deceased on March 8, 2013.