1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is due to the participation.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of “1.” Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the text of the judgment of the first instance, “A” or “C” shall be amended to “A” (hereinafter referred to as “C”) or “C” as “the Intervenor joining the Defendant.”

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The grounds for this part of the scope of the preserved claim are as stated in the part on “2. A.” among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) Whether the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act

B) The representative of the Defendant’s Intervenor, a joint and several liability obligor, is between H and the husband, the president of the Seoul Branch of D, the debtor. The Defendant’s Intervenor, upon the occurrence of a serious managerial crisis of D, sold the instant real estate to the Defendant to normalize D even after having contributed to his own property, and used the price as wages and material costs at D’s construction site, which was inevitable measures to normalize D, and thus, does not constitute a fraudulent act. (2) Determination is a fraudulent act that causes damage to the general creditors of the debtor, but if there are special circumstances where the sale of the real estate was conducted at a reasonable price to meet the legitimate repayment of some creditors, it may be viewed differently (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 6Da1535, Oct. 4, 196; 202Da6236, Mar. 25, 2003).