The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In determining whether a fraudulent act constitutes a subject matter of creditor revocation, if an asset owned by an obligor is provided as a physical collateral for another obligee’s claim, the portion offered as a physical collateral cannot be deemed as the obligor’s liability property for the general obligees. Therefore, the obligor’s active property should be assessed only after deducting the amount of the secured claim held by other obligees from the value of the asset offered as a collateral.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64792, Jan. 12, 2012). In such cases, if several real estate joint mortgages have been established, the amount of secured claims on each real estate is the amount calculated by dividing the amount of secured claims on each real estate, in proportion to the value of each real estate that is the object of joint mortgages, in light of the purport of Article 368 of the Civil Act,

However, in the event that part of the several real estate are owned by the obligor and other parts are owned by the surety, considering that the surety is in the position of the obligor to exercise the mortgage on the real estate owned by the obligor by subrogation pursuant to the provisions of Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Act, barring special circumstances where the surety is unable to exercise the right to indemnity on the obligor, the amount of the secured debt borne by the surety owned by the obligor is the total amount of the secured debt of the joint mortgage limited to the value of the immovables owned by the obligor, and the amount of the secured debt borne by the surety owned by the surety is the remainder after deducting the amount of the secured debt to be borne by the obligor from the amount

This legal doctrine is a single co-owned real estate owned by the debtor, and the same applies to the case where other partial shares are owned by the surety.