Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (Law Firm Jin Law, Attorneys Sung- Chang et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Coin Assets Trust Co., Ltd. and 3 others (Law Firm Jeong-dam, Attorneys Jeon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

February 1, 2012

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap37153 Decided July 19, 201

1.The judgment of the first instance, including any claims added in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of the sales contract on each real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 is dismissed among the Plaintiff’s lawsuits against the Defendant Kudong-dong L&C Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff’s lawsuits against the Defendant Kudong-dong

B. The real estate security trust agreement concluded on February 12, 2009 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 1,700,638,093 between the Gabs Sports Co., Ltd. and the Defendant Coco Asset Trust.

C. The Defendant Cocon Assets Trust Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,700,638,093 and the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the final judgment to the day of full payment.

D. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Kudong-b&S Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's living real estate trust is dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Crocco asset trust is borne by the Defendant Crocco asset trust, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Kudong T&S Co., Ltd., the Defendant Kudong-dong Real Estate Trust, and the Kudong A&D Co., Ltd. is borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

With respect to each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list, the real estate security trust agreement concluded on February 12, 2009 between the defendant 1,700,638,093 shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 1,793. The defendant 200,638,093 shall be paid to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to 5% per annum from the day following the conclusion of the judgment to the day of complete payment. As to each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 list, the defendant 206, which completed the registration of alteration of the ownership transfer on March 23, 2009 and the defendant 206, with the registration of alteration of the ownership transfer on April 10, 209 (the registration of alteration of each trust agreement concluded on April 23, 2009; the registration of alteration of the ownership transfer on each of the real estate recorded on July 1, 2009 between the defendant 200 and the defendant 206, the defendant 25.3.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under either cancellation or performance order shall be revoked. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the real estate security trust agreement concluded on February 12, 2009 between 1,700,638,093 shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 1,700,638,093. The real estate trust agreement for the defendant corporation shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 1,700,638,093 and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from the day following the conclusion of the judgment to the day of complete payment. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the registration of change of ownership shall be revoked by the registry office as of March 23, 2009 and the trust of real estate living together with the defendant corporation No. 2509, Apr. 10, 209. Each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, which completed the procedure of change of ownership transfer registration as of the defendant No. 2509.3.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are acknowledged according to the respective statements and arguments of Gap evidence 1 to 27 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-2 to 6, Eul evidence 16, 17, 26, 27, 32 (including each number), and the purport of the whole arguments.

A. On November 27, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Lone Star Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star”) on the basis of the guaranteed principal amount of KRW 2,00,000,000 (finally, the guaranteed principal was changed to KRW 1,820,000,000) in order to secure the loan obligation against Lone Star Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star Sports”), and the Lone Star Sports Center (finally, the guarantee term was changed to May 11, 2009) by November 7, 2004 (finally, the guarantee term was changed to May 11, 2009). The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the indemnity obligation against the Plaintiff under the credit guarantee agreement.

B. On November 27, 2003, Lone Star was granted a loan of 2,50,000,000 won from one bank as collateral under the credit guarantee agreement issued by the Plaintiff pursuant to the said credit guarantee agreement. However, Lone Star was deprived of the interest due to the overdue payment of the loan principal on May 4, 2009. Accordingly, on August 28, 2009, the Plaintiff paid to one bank 1,709,426,729 (i.e., performance of the guaranteed obligation under the above credit guarantee agreement (i.e., principal 1,635,861,640 + interest 73,565,089 won + interest 73,565,089 won). From the date following the expiration of the said credit guarantee agreement, Lone Star was appropriated for the principal by subrogation of 11,50,130 won (2361,14,500 won).

C. On February 12, 2009, the Lao Sports borrowed KRW 8,500,000,000 per annum from Defendant Kudong-dong A&D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Kudong-dong A&D”) at 24% per annum (hereinafter “the instant loan”). On the same day, in order to secure the instant loan obligations, the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant CoCo Asset Trust”) entered into a real estate security trust agreement with the first beneficiary of Defendant Kudong-dong A&D as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 owned by Gadong-dong A&D (hereinafter “the instant trust agreement”). On February 13, 2009, on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with Defendant C&C assets on the ground of the instant trust agreement.

D. On December 5, 2005, Amateur Sports Co., Ltd. entered into the 00th 2nd 5th son Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Japan Fire Marine Insurance”), Hyundai Swiss Mutual Savings Bank, and Busan Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “UB”) with respect to the above obligees’ real estate as stated in the separate sheet No. 2nd 1 through 4th , and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the above real estate trust agreement (hereinafter “OB 2nd 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 200 2nd 0th 1st 200 2nd 1st 0th 1st 200 3rd 1st 20 3rd 1st 200 trust trust trust agreement.

E. Meanwhile, on July 1, 2009, Defendant Kudong Assets Trust completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the first real estate due to the sale on the same date to Defendant Kudong Assets S&S Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Kudong Assets E&S”), and Defendant Kudong Assets Trust completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the second real estate due to the same date on the same day. Defendant Kudong Assets Trust completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 1, 2009 on the second real estate due to the sale on the same date (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Defendant Kudong Assets Trust completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the second real estate due to the sale on the same date to Defendant Kudong Assets E&S on the same day. Defendant Kudong Assets Trust completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the second real estate due to the same date on the same day.

2. The judgment on the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of the instant sales contract among the Plaintiff’s lawsuits against the Defendant Kudong-dong A&D Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff’s lawsuits against the Defendant Kudong-dong B&S

A. A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of registration against a person liable for registration, namely, a person who is not a person who loses his/her right or is not a person who is not a person who is subject to any other disadvantage (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3925 delivered on February 25, 1994) is an unlawful lawsuit against a person who is not a party (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3925 delivered on February 25,

The registration obligor of each registration of change of the trust for the second real estate completed pursuant to the contract for change of the trust for the first and the second real estate is the Defendant’s living real estate trust, the trustee, and is not the Defendant Kudong L&D, the first beneficiary. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the cancellation of each registration of change of the trust for the Defendant Kudongdong L&D is unlawful as it is filed against the non-party standing.

B. The subject matter of revocation by a creditor is limited to any juristic act conducted between the debtor and the beneficiary, and any juristic act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923, Aug. 30, 2004).

Therefore, it is unlawful to conclude that the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff, the creditor of the Gadice Sports, the beneficiary, and the Defendant Kudong-dong T&S, the subsequent purchaser, asserted that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act and seek revocation thereof.

3. Revocation of the instant trust contract and reinstatement;

A. Formation of preserved claims

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established by the near future legal relationship. In fact, where a claim has been created by the realization of the probability in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da3434, Oct. 28, 1997).

However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the above credit guarantee agreement, which was the basis of establishing the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Lao sports, was already concluded at the time of the conclusion of the instant trust agreement, and it was highly probable that the principal debtor of the said credit guarantee agreement, at the time of the conclusion of the instant trust agreement, has deteriorated financial status by delaying the principal of the loan to the financial institution, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Lao sports was established in the near future. In fact, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was issued by subrogation of the Plaintiff’s obligation for its loan by payment of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the entertainment was not much past, and the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity cannot be seen as having been established in the near future. Accordingly, it is highly probable that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the entertainment beneficiary was established at the time of the instant trust agreement.

B. The intent of the instant trust agreement to harm the private life and the private life of the Lao sports

(1) According to the aforementioned evidence, it is recognized that the property status of the Lao sports was in excess of the debt as indicated in the following table at the time the instant trust contract was concluded (affirmative real estate value, is based on the value assessed by the new bank on April 1, 2009, and the debt, which is a passive property, is based on the amount without dispute between the parties for convenience and principal).

4,549,00,000 won 34,500,500,000 won 61,623,000,000 won , aggregate of the amount of the obligation to return the security deposits of the right to collateral security 23,80,000,000 won , which is established on the real property of 1 real property of KRW 34,50,000,000, which is included in the main text.

Therefore, the Lao Sports concluded the instant trust agreement with Defendant Clucco Asset Trust in excess of its liabilities and concluded the instant trust agreement with Defendant Clucco Asset Trust, which is the sole property of Defendant Clucco Asset Trust (as seen below, with respect to 2 real estate as seen below, the real estate collateral trust agreement was concluded on December 5, 2005 between the Lao Sports and the Defendant Nluc Real Estate Trust, and the ownership transfer registration based on the trust in the future of the Defendant Nluc Estate Trust was completed. Therefore, at the time of the instant trust agreement, the 2 real estate at the time of the instant trust agreement cannot be considered as the active property of the Lao Sports. The 1 real estate is a responsible property for the creditors, including the Plaintiff, and the general creditors cannot recover claims through compulsory execution against the 1 real estate unless it is designated as the priority beneficiary of the instant trust agreement. However, the disposal price of Defendant Cluc Estate is the disposal price of the 1 real estate, which would result in the decrease of the trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the truster of the instant trust agreement.

(2) Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, an obligor’s act of offering real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring special circumstances. However, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, an obligor’s act of creation of security interest does not constitute a fraudulent act in a case where: (a) it is the best way for a debtor to have the ability to repay debts by financing funds in a situation in which the continuation of business is difficult; and (b) if it is inevitable to provide certain creditors with real estate as security and obtain additional financing from the new funds, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da25842, Mar

However, each of the following items (a) through (e) is acknowledged by the parties' respective statements and the purport of the whole pleadings, as well as evidence Nos. 1-1, B-2, 13 through 15, 20, 21, and 28 (including each number) without dispute between them, or as a whole.

(A) On February 12, 2009, Gadong Sports concluded a loan agreement with Defendant Kudong Sports Co., Ltd., and received KRW 6,500,000,000,000 from the loan amount of KRW 8,500,000,000 directly in cash and the remainder of KRW 2,500,000 from the loan amount of KRW 8,50,000,000 from the loan amount of KRW 8,50,000,00 from the loan amount of KRW 2,50,000 from the loan amount of KRW 2,50,000 from Defendant Kudongdong Shipping Co., Ltd with respect to the first real property and KRW 3,450,00 from the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives (the maximum amount of claims) with respect to the third priority beneficiary of Hyundai Hodong Shipping Co., Ltd. (the amount of KRW 2,730,00,00 from the loan amount of KRW 2,000.

(B) Some of the above KRW 6,00,000 among the above KRW 6,00,000 used as taxes in arrears, retirement allowances of officers and employees, etc., but most of them used to repay the debt owed to Costa Star (at the time, the amount of loan equivalent to KRW 24,190,000,000 was owed to Amount of KRW 24,190,000).

(C) However, Lone Star is a major shareholder who holds 81% of the shares of an Lao sports.

(D) In order to take part in capital increase with Lone Star’s capital shortage, Lao’s business, which is the other subsidiary of Lone Star’s other subsidiary, borrowed an amount of KRW 2,100,000 from Hyundai Swiss Mutual Savings Bank to participate in capital increase. The Lao Sports concluded a real estate security trust agreement with the Hyundai Swiss Mutual Savings Bank as the first beneficiary with respect to the second real estate in order to secure the above loan obligation of Lao’s entertainment.

(5) On the other hand, Defendant 2: (a) reported 0 or more of the instant real estate leased to Defendant 2 for the purpose of purchasing and selling the instant real estate 0 or more, and (b) reported 0 or more of the instant real estate leased to Defendant 1, 20 or more for the purpose of purchasing and selling the instant real estate 0 or 00 or more real estate leased to Defendant 2; and (c) reported 0 or more of the instant real estate leased to Defendant 1, 200 or more for the purpose of purchasing and selling the instant real estate 0 or more real estate leased to Defendant 2; and (d) reported 0 or more of the instant real estate leased to Defendant 1, 200 or more for the purpose of purchasing and selling the instant real estate 0 or more real estate leased to Defendant 2; and (e) requested that Defendant 1 and 2,000 or more of the instant real estate leased to Defendant 1, 200 or more for the purpose of purchasing and selling the instant real estate leased to Defendant 2.

In full view of the above facts, most of the instant loans raised from Defendant Kudong Sports through the instant trust agreement were used for the purpose of repaying debts to Lone Star, one of its major shareholders, through the instant trust agreement. In addition, the instant trust agreement appears to have been concluded by the method that, in the process of negotiations on sale of the real estate 1 and 2, Defendant Kudong-dong Sports, instead of immediately purchasing the instant loans on the securities, reserved the right to purchase the instant loans at the time of the delay in the performance of the Gaonedong Sports, and instead, secured the right to purchase the instant loans at the time of the delay in the performance of the Gadong Sports. However, it did not pay all the interest on the instant loans, and Defendant Kudong-dong Sports did not exercise its purchase right without delay as stipulated in the instant special agreement, thereby practically selling the same 1 and 2 real estate on the part of Defendant Kudong-dong Sports directly.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the instant trust agreement was the best method to continue the business by financing funds to have the ability to repay debts, and that it was inevitable to make new funds available for financing.

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the amount of the instant loan procured through the instant trust agreement was partially repaid, and that the amount of the instant loan was reduced by KRW 74,623,00,000 in total, including the secured debt of the right to collateral security regarding the first and second real estate of the Gaeo Sports, the obligation to return the lease deposit, the obligation to return the membership deposit of the Sports Center, and the obligation to repay the borrowed amount of the instant loan, and that the value of the first and second real estate at that time was KRW 56,027,00,000, which did not result in the damage to the general creditors under the instant trust agreement.

However, as seen earlier, most of the loan funds of this case procured under the instant trust agreement were used to repay the debts to Lone Star Sports Co., Ltd. A major shareholder of the Lao Sports. Moreover, even if the reduced property of the Lao Sports exceeds the reduced active property, the act of disposing of the first real estate, which is the only property in excess of the debt amount, cannot be denied in that the act of disposing of the first real estate, which is the sole property in excess of the debt amount, would completely extinguish the general creditors’ joint collateral. The aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

(3) In addition, if a security right is established on an object transferred by the obligor, only the remaining part of the object which remains after deducting the amount of the secured debt is deducted, and if the amount of the secured debt exceeds the price of the object, the transfer of the object cannot be deemed a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da23207 delivered on October 29, 196).

However, as seen earlier, the value of the first real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant trust contract was KRW 34,50,000,000. Even according to the Defendants’ assertion, the secured debt amount of the right to collateral security established with respect to the first real estate is KRW 23,80,000,000,000, and the total amount of the obligation such as taxes and retirement allowances is KRW 1,187,909,938 (the Defendant merely asserted that the amount of value-added tax for January 1, 2009 was 7,459,721,260, and the corporate tax for the year 209 was 6,381,545,970, respectively, and each national tax was 381,5,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000).

In this regard, the defendants asserted that the 33,274,00,000 won is also included in the secured debt of the first real estate, and therefore, the 1st real estate has no value as a joint collateral.

As seen earlier, a sports center is a general sports facility that has completed a report pursuant to the Sports Facilities Act. Furthermore, according to Article 27(1) and (2) Subparag. 1 of the Sports Facilities Act, a person who acquires essential facilities according to the facility standards of a sports facility business through an auction procedure under the Civil Execution Act succeeds to the obligation to refund membership deposits in accordance with the matters agreed upon between the existing sports facility business entity and its members. Therefore, in the event that an auction of a sports center consisting of most of the first real estate is conducted and the purchaser acquires the essential facilities, the calculation of the successful bid price may be anticipated to take into account the amount of the obligation to return membership deposits that the said purchaser succeeds to.

However, in a case where an essential facility of the Gaone Sports Center is acquired, the obligation to return the membership deposit of the Gaone Sports Center is succeeded to the underwriter, and the security equivalent to the amount of obligation to return the said membership deposit cannot be deemed as having already been established at the time of the instant trust agreement. This is because each provision of the Sports Facilities Act does not stipulate that the right to preferential reimbursement shall be granted to the members of the Gaone Sports Center as well as the right to preferential reimbursement. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion based on the premise that the obligation to return the membership deposit of the Gaone Sports Center constitutes the secured obligation of the 1st real estate is without merit.

(4) Meanwhile, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, it is recognized that Lone Star has prepared a profit-sharing agreement containing the content that "if the Lao sport was made profits earned from the 1 and 2 real estate after the termination of the trust contract after the termination of the trust contract and the conclusion of the trust agreement of this case and the first trust contract of this case, Lone Star shall have preferential rights with the creditors listed in the attached list in proportion to the amount of claims, in addition to the amount of claims," under the premise of the conclusion of the deed of this case and the first trust agreement of this case.

However, the Defendants: (a) stated that the agreement on the distribution of profits in the instant trust agreement and the agreement on the purchase of the 1, 2 real estate premised thereon was drafted in accordance with Defendant Kudong Sports’s demand that the creditors of the 1, 2 real estate had concerns over raising an issue; (b) in light of the fact that “the creditors list of the 1, 2, and 2 real estate” as stated in the said agreement on the distribution of profits is an official space; and (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the general creditors of the 2, including the Plaintiff, have consented thereto; and (d) it is difficult to deem that the aforementioned facts alone, notwithstanding the instant trust agreement, have prepared a plan to maintain the value of the 1, 2 real estate as joint collateral so that the general creditors of the 1, 2 real estate can enjoy the profits of the 1, 2, and

(5) Furthermore, in determining the debtor's intention to commit a fraudulent act, the circumstances at the time of the fraudulent act should be based on the standard. However, in determining the debtor's intention to commit a fraudulent act, such as the debtor's efforts to repay and the creditor's attitude after the act alleged as a fraudulent act, it may be deemed as indirect facts together with other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da57884, Dec. 12, 2003).

However, as seen earlier, Amateur Sports used a considerable portion of the instant loan funds procured from Defendant Kudong-AW under the instant trust agreement for the repayment of the debt to Lone Star, one of its major shareholders (However, Lone Star is likely to have caused a credit guarantee accident where the Plaintiff subrogated for the said loan obligations because it did not repay principal of the loan to one bank). Furthermore, even in light of the content of the agreement on the distribution of the above profit, it appears that the instant trust agreement had the awareness of undermining its general creditors.

In full view of these circumstances, it is recognized that the intent of the Lao sports at the time of the instant trust agreement is recognized.

In addition, Article 8(1) of the Trust Act provides that “Where an obligor has created a trust with the knowledge that it harms the obligee, the obligee may file a claim for revocation and restitution of the original status under Article 406(1) of the Civil Act even if the trustee is acting in good faith.” Therefore, inasmuch as the instant trust agreement constitutes fraudulent act, and the intention of the damage of the obligee, which is the obligor, is recognized, the good faith of the Defendant Crocccco trust, the trustee under the instant trust agreement, does not affect the conclusion of the instant trust agreement and the recognition of the duty to restore the Defendant Croccco trust.

(c) Scope of revocation and compensation for the value thereof;

In the event of a fraudulent act with respect to a real estate on which the right to collateral security has been established, such fraudulent act is established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the amount of the claim secured by the right to collateral security from the value of the real estate. If the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security has been cancelled after the fraudulent act was committed, the revocation of the fraudulent act would result in restoration to the portion not provided as the joint collateral of the general creditors. Thus, the order to recover the real estate itself would be unfair, so the fraudulent act may be revoked and the compensation for damages may be ordered only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the amount of the claim secured by the right to collateral security from the value of the right to collateral security at the time of closing the argument of the real estate. Meanwhile, the scope of revocation of the fraudulent act shall be limited to the amount

As seen earlier, the portion of the obligation, such as the secured obligation and retirement payment, which was established as to the secured obligation of the right of collateral security and preferential payment, among the immovable property No. 1 at the time of the instant trust agreement, should be excluded from the property of liability of the Lao Sports, which is open to the common creditors’ joint collateral. However, the fact that Defendant Kudong L&C borrowed KRW 22,00,000 from a new bank around April 10, 2009 and paid KRW 5,300,000 out of the secured obligation of the secured obligation of the right of collateral security established as to the immovable property No. 1 by subrogation for about KRW 6,10,000 among the secured obligation of the right of collateral security established as to the real property of this case is recognized by each entry and the whole purport of pleadings as follows. Accordingly, the instant trust agreement should be revoked within the scope of the amount obtained by deducting the above secured obligation, etc. from the value of the closing of argument of the first real property and the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim, which is the beneficiary.

However, as seen earlier, the value of the first real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant trust contract is KRW 34,50,000,000, and even according to the Defendants’ assertion, the amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established with respect to the first real estate is KRW 23,80,000,000,000, and the amount of the debt such as taxes with preferential payment rights and retirement allowances is KRW 1,187,909,938,000. The Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Lao Sports was KRW 1,700,638,093 (=1,709,426,729 – KRW 11,15,130 + KRW 2,361,910 + 4,584). It is clear that the remainder of the secured debt after deducting the secured claim from the value of the first real estate is much more than the above claim for reimbursement even if there is a little change until the date of closing the argument.

Therefore, the trust contract of this case shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 1,700,638,093, and the trust contract of this case is obliged to pay as the trustee the amount of KRW 1,700,638,093 and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the conclusion of the judgment to the day of full payment.

4. Whether the establishment of a fraudulent act under the 1 or 2 trust amendment contract is recognized;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to secure the Defendant Kudong-dong Sports’s obligation to borrow the instant loan loan against Defendant Kudong-dong L&D, the first trust agreement was concluded between Defendant Kudong-dong Real Estate Trust and Defendant Kudong-dong Real Estate Trust to add Defendant Kudong-dong Real Estate as the first beneficiary with respect to the second real estate, and the second trust modification agreement was concluded to expand the amount of subsequent profit limit. The first and second trust modification agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors such as the Plaintiff, etc., and the original state of restitution must follow the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration.

B. Determination

When the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the trust of real estate, the ownership inside and outside the country is entirely transferred to the trustee, and the ownership is not reserved in the internal relationship with the truster (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da70460, Apr. 12, 2002).

However, as seen earlier, on December 5, 2005, prior to the conclusion of the contract for the alteration of the first and second trust, the Amateur Sports entered into a real estate trust agreement with Defendant New Real Estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant New Real Estate Trust. Therefore, the 2nd real estate is the ownership of Defendant New Real Estate Trust in the Republic of Korea and abroad. However, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the 2nd real estate was restored to the 2nd real estate as the said real estate was restored to the 2nd real estate’s responsibilities for the Amateur Sports’s responsibilities. Therefore, the 2nd real estate cannot be deemed as the responsibilities property offered to the common creditors’ joint collateral, and the 1 and 2nd trust agreement does not constitute a fraudulent act that causes a decrease in the responsibilities property of the Amateur Sports. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, as to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Kudong-dong L&D and the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the sales contract of this case against the defendant Kudong-dong-dong L& S&S are unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Kudong-dong-dong assets trust is dismissed, and the plaintiff's remaining claim against the defendant Kudong-dong S&S, and the claim against the defendant Kudong-dong assets trust against the defendant Kudong-dong assets trust is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in part of this conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, including the plaintiff's appeal partially accepted and the claim added in the trial of the first instance

[Attachment]

Judge Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)