The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. An act of a debtor in a state of excess of his/her obligation to offer real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors as mortgage for claims constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, except in extenuating circumstances;

(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to property disposal, etc., and by misapprehending the legal principles as to property disposal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to property disposal, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to property disposal, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Furthermore, even if the above act of purchasing real estate and the act of offering security were conducted in sequence within a short period without all the same time, barring special circumstances, it shall not be deemed that there was an increase or decrease in the existing creditors' joint security through the series of acts, barring any other special circumstances. Thus, the act of offering security cannot be deemed as

(2) The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the establishment of a collateral security on the instant real estate, which is almost the only property value executing to the Defendant in the event of a company E (hereinafter “E”) was a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a creditor, as a creditor, on April 23, 2009, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

3.However.