1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B, June 2, 2014.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of "A or Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 14" to the 3 acts of the same 4 acts of the court of first instance (which is the basis for recognition). Thus, this part shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

E. B, at the time of the instant purchase and sale contract, had no particular property other than the instant real estate at the time of the instant purchase and sale contract, and was in excess of the debt, such as (i) having to bear the secured debt of KRW 639,731,00,00, total sum of the secured debt of KRW 72,000 with respect to the instant real estate.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination on the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution

A. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion B had completed the instant principal registration on the ground of the instant sales contract with the Defendant on July 3, 2015, with respect to the instant real estate, which is substantially valuable as property only in fact, in excess of the obligation, and constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors, including the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor.

B. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for revocation of the instant sales contract and a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act seeking restitution only after the lapse of one year from April 10, 2017, even though the Plaintiff was aware of the fact of the instant principal registration and the instant sales contract, which is the grounds for the registration, by receiving a notice of revocation of provisional attachment registration from the competent registry office, around July 17, 2015. The Defendant asserts that the limitation period is unlawful because it exceeds the limitation period. Unless the legal act which is the grounds for provisional registration and the legal act which is the grounds for the registration is clearly different from the legal act that is the grounds for provisional registration, the initial date of the limitation period for claims, such as provisional registration and the revocation of the fraudulent act as to the grounds for the principal registration, shall be the