1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Based on the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal, the judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the part of the 7th to the 5th to the above 7th to the above 4th to the following second is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, (c) in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. On the part above, the defendant asserts that the assignment order among the above assignment order and assignment order in the plaintiff's exercise of the plaintiff's right to revoke the fraudulent act is revoked only, and the seizure order remains effective independently. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant, who are equally in the status of creditors, can execute the property B in proportion to their respective claims. Thus, the defendant asserts that he is liable for compensation for value by limiting the amount of the money received according to the above assignment order to the plaintiff's claim amount among the money received according to the above assignment order.

However, in the event that the execution of a notarial deed in a monetary loan contract, which is the cause of the above claim seizure and assignment order, was revoked by fraudulent act, it shall be deemed that the entire claim seizure and assignment order based on such fraudulent act has become null and void in relation to the Plaintiff. Considering the intent of the creditor's right of revocation system that cancels the fraudulent act between the debtor and the beneficiary for the sake of preserving debtor's responsible property and intends to return the property deviating from debtor's general property to the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser for all creditors, allowing the creditor, who is the beneficiary, to refuse the return of the apportioned amount of the claim would be contrary to the purport of the system because it would result in protecting the beneficiary who has received payment for his own claim and disregarding other creditors' interests, and thus, it would be contrary to the purport of the system.