1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) except for the use of “the same day” of the third 16 line of the judgment of the first instance as “ October 12, 2012,” the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the instant claim, asserting that: (a) the entering into a promise to return the substitute of this case with the Defendant on April 1, 2013, when the debtor B was in excess of his/her obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces ordinary creditor’s security; and (b) revocation of the promise to return the substitute of this case; and (c) revocation of the provisional registration of this case against the Defendant due to its restitution.

B. In order to establish a fraudulent act, a debtor's joint security by doing any juristic act, that is, the amount obtained by deducting a passive property from his active property, should be less than the transfer of the juristic act. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that establishing a new provisional registration for collateral security with the same amount as the secured obligation in lieu of cancelling the provisional registration by repaying the secured obligation with respect to the debtor's real property in excess of the debt, cannot be deemed as a lack of the debtor's joint security, and thus, a fraudulent act is not established.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the object of the promise for return of substitute goods by April 18, 2012 is 2.863 shares out of the land before the instant partition, and the object of the promise for return of substitute goods by substitute goods by substitute goods by substitute goods by substitute goods by uniting the entire purport of the pleadings in the facts acknowledged earlier, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da19435, Jul. 11, 2003). The object of the promise for return of substitute goods by substitute goods by substitute goods by substitute goods by uniting the common property jointly owned by B prior to the instant partition, but the remaining contents of each promise for return of substitute goods are the same.