1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for partial revision as follows.

The Act on December 30, 2013 shall be amended to "........ on December 26, 2013" at the bottom of the two sides of the judgment of the first instance, and at the bottom of the three sides.

The Bank of Korea, "The maximum amount of debt" of 3 pages 5 and 6 pages 2 and 3 of the first instance judgment, shall be revised to "The Bank, the maximum amount of debt," and the "Evidence 1-7 of the first instance judgment" of 9 shall be revised to "The Bank, the maximum amount of debt," respectively.

The 11th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be amended to "the lawsuit against fraudulent act" in the 11th of the judgment.

On the 6th of the judgment of the first instance court, "the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage has been completed" shall be deleted.

On the 6th 12th 18th 18th 1st 6th 1st 6th 6th 1st 2th 2th 2th 2th 20

“The principal and interest of 48,034,592 won as of November 23, 2016, which was the date of the closing of argument in the political party, [28,984,43 won + 2,182,170 won [28,984,43 won x 6% x 193/365), x (193/365), hereinafter the same shall apply] exceeding 16,867,989 won [28,984,43 won x 20% x 20% x (233/366)]. Thus, the sales contract in this case shall be revoked within the limit of 48,034,592 won, which is the total amount of the Plaintiff’s credit amount, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the following day of the judgment to the day of complete payment.”

2. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance that differs from the above conclusion (the part that increased the scope of revocation of fraudulent act and the amount of compensation for value as a result of the increase in the Plaintiff’s preserved claim amount as a result of adding damages for delay from the date following the date of the date of the closing of argument in the court of first instance to the date of the closing of argument in the court of first instance, which is the fact-finding court, to the date