The starting point of the exclusion period of creditor's right of revocation is the time the sales contract is concluded.

The starting point of the exclusion period of the obligee’s right of revocation was at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, and a written agreement was formulated separately from the sales contract, but this is merely an agreement for the implementation of the instant sales contract, not a new legal act different from the instant sales contract, and thus, cannot be deemed as

2013Na2003734

○○ Other

○○○

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2011Gahap12303 Decided December 20, 2012

2015.027

2015.04.08

1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim added and modified in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

(a) The primary claim and the preliminary claim of 00 HanA are all dismissed;

B. All of the conjunctive claims made by the PPB and thisCC among the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the Plaintiff (AB0).

【State Claim】

1. Conclusion on June 9, 201 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between HanD and defendant Choi E-E

such agreement shall be cancelled.

2. Sheet 00 LB:

(a) 1) Defendant Choi E and FF Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “FF Bank”) shall pay 15,310,087,220 won each interest and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment;

2) Of Defendant Choi E, FF Bank and each of the above KRW 15,310,087,220, Defendant Sog, Defendant Sog, 3,500,000,000;

The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s (hereinafter “Successor”) paid 800,000,000 won to Defendant J, Defendant J’s 300,000,000 won to Defendant J, and Defendant ○○○○○ shall pay 500,000,000 won to each of them, and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

B. The above (a) and selectively:

1) Defendant EE shall pay 15,310,087,220 won and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of full payment;

2) As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant FF Bank completed on September 2, 201 with the Seoul Northern District Court’s Northern District Court’s receipt No. 80783, and Defendant LFG completed on November 30, 201 with the receipt No. 107700 of the receipt on September 30, 201, Defendant LFG’s completion on November 30, 201 with the same registry; Defendant LFJ completed on the receipt of No. 107701 of the same date as the same registry; Defendant JJ completed on the same date as the same registry; Defendant ○○○ completed on the receipt of the same registry; Defendant ○○○ completed on the same date; and Defendant ○○○○ completed the procedure for the cancellation of each registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on December 12, 2011 with the same registry office

3. To 00 E.C.:

(a) 1) Defendant Choi E, HandG, and successor II shall pay the interest of KRW 800,000 per annum and 5% per annum from the day following the day this decision became final and conclusive to the day of full payment;

2) Defendant E, grandchildrenG, and successor Intervenor Park Ⅱ and each of the above 800,00,000 won, Defendant Maximum EE shall pay 300,000,000 won, Defendant ○○○○○ shall pay 500,000,000 won, and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment.

B. The above (a) and selectively:

1) Defendant EE shall pay 800,000,000 won and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment; and

2) As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant YG completed by the Seoul Northern District Court’s Northern District Court’s receipt No. 107700 on November 30, 201, the succeeding Intervenor GH completed by the receipt of No. 107701 on the same day of the same registry office, Defendant YJ completed by the receipt of the same registry office, Defendant YJ completed by the receipt of No. 107702 on the same day of the same registry office, and Defendant ○○○○○○ completed by the same registry office on December 12, 2011.

4. 00 HanA:

(a) 1) Defendant Maximum E and BaG shall pay each interest of KRW 1,000,000,000 and 5% per annum from the day following the day this decision became final to the day of full payment;

2) The Intervenor’s succeeding intervenor’s taxing KRW 800,000,000 among Defendant Choi E, BaG and each of them’s KRW 1,000,000,000, Defendant JJ paid 800,000,000 to Defendant JJ, Defendant ○○○○ shall pay 50,000,000 and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this decision became final to the day of full payment.

B. The above (a) and selectively:

1) Defendant EE shall pay 1,00,000,000 won and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment;

2) As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant Sog completed by the Seoul Northern District Court’s Northern District Court’s receipt No. 107700 on November 30, 201, the succeeding Intervenor Park II completed by the receipt of No. 107701 on the same day of the same registry office, the Defendant Choi J completed by the receipt of the same registry office as the same registry office, and the Defendant ○○○○○○ completed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of each registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage completed by the receipt of No. 111686 on December 12, 2011.

【Preliminary Claim】

DaD and Defendant Maximum EE on July 15, 2009 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between Korea-Japan and Defendant Maximum E;

The sales contract shall be revoked. This provision shall also apply to paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the primary purport of the claim.

[Plaintiff (Ship 00) extended the amount of compensation to the original purport of the claim and added it to the preliminary claim after selectively adding the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage to the method of restitution, and added the primary claim by establishing the fraudulent act subject to cancellation by agreement dated June 9, 2011]

Purport of appeal

1. Prior 00 BaB

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the highest 00 BB shall be revoked. B between the highest 00 B and the defendant highest E

u. The sales contract concluded on July 15, 2009 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between Defendant EE and KD shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 5,00,000,000. The payment shall be made to the Plaintiff (preferred 00); Defendant EE shall be made at the rate of KRW 5,00,000; Defendant EE shall be paid at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the instant complaint to the day of full payment; Defendant FF Bank shall be KRW 3,213,469,00; Defendant LiG shall be KRW 56,65,00; Defendant LiG shall be KRW 136,380; and Defendant JJ shall be paid KRW 51,200,000; KRW 5,000,000; KRW 56,380,000; and KRW 136,00,000; and Defendant J shall be paid KRW 51,014,000,837,00.

2. Defendant Choi E, HandG, succeeding Intervenor Park II, JJ, ○○○○○

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the judgment against the above Defendants against the aforementioned Defendants between 00 ECC, Han-A and the Defendant Maximum EE, DamageG, GaG, Park II, LJ, and ○○○○, is revoked, and the corresponding part of the judgment against the Defendants is dismissed.

3. Scope of the judgment of this court.

In the first instance court, PPB, LCC, and LA had filed a claim against the Defendants on July 15, 2009 for compensation for value with the cancellation of the sales contract on the ground that the sales contract was a fraudulent act. However, the first instance court dismissed the lawsuit of PPB, dismissed the claim against PPB of PPPB, and accepted the claim against PPB of PPPPB of PPCC and LA, and partly accepted the claim against the remaining Defendants of PPB0, and the claim against the remaining Defendants of PPBA was partially accepted. Accordingly, only P00, PPB was appealed, and only the rest of the Defendants other than the FF bank was appealed, and the judgment of the first instance court on the claim against PFB of PFCC and LA became final and conclusive.

In addition, at the trial of the party, P00 LB, P0 LB added the primary claim against the Defendants other than the Defendant FF Bank, and the Korea AA added the primary claim against the Defendants, and subsequently amended and expanded the claim as well as its primary claim. Ultimately, the part of the claim against the Defendants of P00 LB, P00 LB, and LA’s claim against the Defendants is subject to the judgment of this court.

1. Facts of recognition;

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19 through 21, 24, 26, 35 through 37,

42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53 Evidence, Eul 2, 3, 5, 10 through 18, 21, 27, 74, 75, 80;

84, 91, 92, 94 Evidence, Eul 1, and 3 (including each number), the highest witness of the trial;

Park II’s testimony, the purport of the whole pleading

A. The acquisition of the instant real estate by HanD and the conclusion of a trust contract

1) On November 7, 2001, Han-do purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet from MM Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") and completed the registration of ownership transfer on its own name on March 17, 2005. At the same time, for the payment of the purchase balance, Han-D borrowed the real estate of this case from Nt Savings Bank, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Nt Savings Bank, etc.") as collateral, and on the same day, completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the management trust (hereinafter referred to as the "PP real estate trust") on March 16, 2005.

2) On August 24, 2006, Defendant JJ completed the registration of entry into provisional disposition on August 28, 2006 by taking the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of fraudulent act as the preserved right (hereinafter “Defendant JJ’s provisional disposition”).

B. Revocation of fraudulent act under the instant trust contract

1) 한DD의 채권자인 주식회사 QQ상사(이하 'QQ상사'라 한다)는 2007. 7. 4. RR부동산신탁을 상대로 서울중앙지방법원 2007가합57171호로 이 사건 신탁계약의 취소를 구하는 소를 제기하였다. 이에 위 법원은 2009. 3. 25. 이 사건 신탁계약이 사해행위에 해당한다고 인정한 후 이를 취소하고, PP부동산신탁 명의의 소유권이전등기를 말소하라는 판결을 선고하였고, 위 판결은 2009. 5. 15. 확정되었다.

2) QQ상사는 2009. 5. 22. 한DD과 사이에 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매매계약이 체결되면 한DD이 QQ상사에 1,430,000,000원을 지급하고, QQ상사는 이와 동시에 한DD에게 서울중앙지방법원 2007가합57171호 판결을 집행하는 데 필요한 서류들을 넘겨주기로 합의하였다.

3) 한DD은 아래와 같이 이 사건 부동산에 대한 매매계약이 체결된 후인 2009. 7. 23. 피고 최EE를 통하여 QQ상사에 1,430,000,000원을 지급하였고, QQ상사는 한DD에게위 서류들을 넘겨주었다.

4) Meanwhile, as Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap138012 filed a lawsuit against the OPOP real estate trust, which is another creditor of HanD, seeking the cancellation of the instant trust agreement and the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of the PP real estate trust, and the judgment was finalized on March 26, 2010.

C. Conclusion of the instant sales contract

1) On July 15, 2009, Han-do entered into a contract to sell the instant real estate at KRW 23,800,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with the Defendant Maximum EE on July 15, 2009. Daehan and the Defendant Maximum E shall pay the payment method for the purchase price on the date of the contract, and KRW 14,000,000,000 for loans to Han-do N Savings Bank, etc., and KRW 7,80,000,000 for the remainder payment, and shall be paid on July 10, 2009 for the remainder payment, and if the payment date is extended by mutual agreement between the financial institutions, etc., the remainder of the payment date of this contract on January 29, 2009 shall be within the remainder of 10 days after the date of the contract.

2.The order against the lessees of this real estate shall be the most liable for Defendant E;

3. The defendant most E shall succeed to the security deposit and facility cost of the lessee who asserts the right of retention and shall be deducted from the purchase price.

5. Defendant LE shall respectively acquire 1.8 billion won from the OE’s tax, 5.22 million won from the Seoul Metropolitan Government’s tax, and 1.5 million won from the building’s tax.

The payment date shall be determined, and the down payment shall be made at the time of the payment of the remainder, and the lease to the lessee of the building of this case

A special agreement was made to pay the balance after deducting the obligation of deposit, etc., and on the same day,

The written agreement on the performance of a contract is prepared on July 20, 2009, and the last balance date shall be July 20, 2009, and KRW 1,000,000,000 shall be paid until August 20, 2009. Of the balance, KRW 1,00,000,000 out of the balance shall be paid.

Of the instant buildings, when partial leased objects were delivered to Defendant Maximum EE, the remainder was agreed to pay KoreaD along with the cancellation of attachment and provisional disposition entry registration established on the instant real estate.

2) On the other hand, the defendant on July 29, 2009 and July 30, 2009, as Otax secretary, Otax secretary, Otax secretary, and Otax secretary.

The amount equivalent to the delinquent tax amount of HanD out of the real estate purchase price bonds of this case held against the largest E;

461,501,010 won, 2,134,223,80 won, 4,672,193,670 won, and around that time, the defendant was seized to the highest EE.

The fact was notified.

(d) Implementation Agreements dated 31, 2009

1) As to the implementation of the instant sales contract on July 31, 2009, Korea-D and Defendant Maximum EE

The main contents of this case are as follows. On the other hand, Defendant Maximum E

630,000,000 won was paid to Korea-Japan.

7. Defendant LE shall pay to Korea-D only the amount excluding the above mutual aid fund out of the total purchase amount after the completion of the sale procedure.

2. The remainder amount of KRW 2,457,029,739 shall be paid to DaD by January 31, 2010 after the settlement of accounts for rent.

3. Of the remainder 2,457,029,739 won, 357,029,739 won, 357,029,739 won, the remainder 2,100,000 won, 1,000,000 won, out of the remainder 2,10,000,000 won, shall be paid to YYA lessee on the third floor above ground, and the 1,100,00,000 won, 1,000,000 won, 1,00,000,000 won, shall be paid to YA lessee on the third floor above ground, and this CC shall be paid to YA lessee on the third floor above ground to secure this, a lease agreement of 1,00,000,000 won, 1,000,000 won, i,00,0000 won, and i,000,00

2) On August 24, 2009, Han-D sent a notice of termination that the instant sales contract was automatically rescinded, on the ground that the purchaser did not pay the balance on July 20, 2009, which is the balance date stipulated in the agreement dated July 15, 2009, among the buyers who wish to sell the instant real estate above the Defendant Maximum EE, and on August 26, 2009, concluded a contract to sell the instant real estate for KRW 26,000,000, or promised to sell the instant real estate for KRW 34,000,000 to the TPP Construction Co., Ltd. on September 15, 2009. However, the said promise was not fulfilled.

(e) Performance agreement dated December 29, 2009

1) On November 30, 2009, UU Savings Bank, etc. received from the Seoul Northern District Court a voluntary decision to commence auction based on the right to collateral security of KRW 14,000,000 from the maximum debt amount set up on the instant real estate.

2) On December 29, 2009, Han-D and Defendant Choi E-E again agreed on the implementation of the instant sales contract, and the relevant major contents are as follows.

The lease contract of KRW 1,100,000 shall be delivered respectively, and a promissory note and a lease deposit shall be null and void when each money is repaid.

F. The discharge of the obligation by the Defendant Maximum EE

1) On December 29, 2009, the Defendant Maximum E made and issued a written confirmation to the 00 ECE on December 29, 2009 that “On the completion of the transfer registration of the instant building and its site, the Defendant Maximum E shall pay 500,000,000 won as facility costs and the premium to the instant V company or the lessee and shall confirm that the Plaintiff consented to withdrawal from the Defendant Maximum E account in the current WW mutual savings bank.” In addition, the Defendant Maximum E also made and issued a written confirmation to this effect on the same day under the premise that this XX is the third floor YY or the lessee on the ground of the instant building, and it shall make and deliver a written evidence to the Maximum 00B to the effect that “Defendant Maximum E borrowed 150,000,000 won on the ground of this case and shall return it on January 29, 2010.”

2) From January 4, 2010 to December 29, 2009, according to the agreement of December 29, 2009, Defendant LE created a lease agreement stating that “this lease agreement shall enter into force after the formation of the sale contract of this case and the transfer of ownership is completed.” On the same day, Defendant LE created an executory exemplification of 1,000,000,000,000,000 won, and an executory exemplification of notarial deeds on promissory notes as stated on January 4, 2010, and issued them to Defendant E: (a) from July 15, 2009 to July 14, 2010; and (b) as the special agreement, “this lease shall enter into force after the formation of the sale contract of this case and the transfer of ownership is completed; and (c) on the same day, Defendant E prepared an executory exemplification of 50,000,000 won, and delivered it to the issuer.

3) Meanwhile, on January 6, 2010, the Defendant Maximum EE shall pay 1,839,908,910 won in arrears of HandiD to the head of the Z on January 6, 2010.

After deposit of KRW 600,000,000 on the same day into the Z public account in the case, the payment has been made.

If a provisional disposition entry registration entered in the real estate is cancelled, it shall be paid as local tax in arrears of Korea-D;

From October 25, 2010 to December 25, 2010, a written pledge of payment was made to pay in installments the amount of KRW 200,000,000. On January 12, 2010, Suwon-si paid KRW 200,000 in lieu of Hanwon-si.

G. Dismissal of the first application for ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate

1) On August 6, 2009, Defendant ○○○○○ (competent authority 00 years of age) received a provisional disposition prohibiting disposal (hereinafter referred to as “provisional disposition by Defendant ○○○○○○○”) by taking the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the termination of trust contract based on the obligee’s subrogation right as the preserved right with respect to the instant real estate as the preserved right, and the subsequent provisional disposition registration was completed on August 6, 2009 and on August 17, 2009, respectively on the instant land. Aa City was completed on December 16, 2009 by taking the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of a trust by taking the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of a trust by fraudulent means as the preserved right (hereinafter referred to as “provisional disposition at the time of A”).

The decision was made and the registration of preliminary injunction was completed on the same day. As such, the case was completed.

As seen earlier, three preliminary injunction entry registrations are completed together with the registration of the entry of the injunction by Defendant JJ as to the real property.

was changed.

2) 피고 최EE와 한DD은 2010. 1. 12. QQ상사를 신청인으로 하여 서울북부지방법원 북부등기소에 이 사건 부동산에 관한 PP부동산신탁 명의의 소유권이전등기, 피고 최JJ, ○○○○ 및 aa시의 각 가처분기입등기의 말소등기를 신청하는 한편, 위 소유권이전등기가 말소되는 것을 전제로 한DD으로부터 피고 최EE 앞으로 2009. 7. 15. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 아울러 신청하였다.

3) However, on January 20, 2010, the above registry office rejected all applications for cancellation registration on the ground that the consent of interested parties was not attached to the registration, and rejected applications for ownership transfer registration on the ground that the person liable for registration (DDD) recorded in the application for registration does not coincide with the registry (PP real estate trust). Defendant Maximum E filed an objection against this, but did not have a direct interest in the registration as to the decision to dismiss the application for cancellation, and the objection against the decision to dismiss the application for ownership transfer registration was dismissed.

H. Dismissal of the second application for ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate

1) On May 25, 2010 and June 4, 2010, Han-do notified that the instant sales contract was revoked on the grounds of the remainder payment once again to Defendant Choi E-E, and that it would confiscate down payment deposited in the N Savings Bank as down payment. Moreover, on June 16, 2010, Han-do filed a civil petition with the consent to the cancellation of provisional disposition registration so that the sale of the instant real estate can be allowed.

2) On August 16, 2010, the 00-year-old visa was seized KRW 11,564,879,110, which is the amount equivalent to the delinquent tax amount of HanD out of the instant real estate purchase price claim against the Defendant Maximum E, and around that time, notified the Defendant Maximum E.

3) On August 25, 2010, Han-do issued a certificate of the personal seal impression for the sale of real estate to the Defendant Maximum EE, and the Defendant Maximum EE promised to pay approximately KRW 1,400,000,000 to the person designated by Han-do or Han-do after settling the rent, etc. when completing the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate on September 14, 2010.

4) On September 15, 2010, Defendant E made efforts to obtain consent from Defendant ○○○ and Aa City on the cancellation of provisional disposition registration by preparing a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement of KRW 2,492,869,140 or paying KRW 570,211,480 at Aa.

5) However, the application for cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of PP real estate trust filed on September 15, 2010 was rejected on the ground that there was no consent of the preceding disposal authority, and the application for the registration of ownership transfer filed by Defendant 00 and HanD was dismissed.

(i) Cancellation of Defendant JJ and ○○○○’s provisional disposition entry registration

1) On November 2, 2010, Defendant Maximum EE and Defendant ○○○○○○○ on November 2, 2010, as to the 00-year-old secretary by Defendant Maximum ED.

The defendant ○○○ agreed to cancel the provisional disposition entry registration on November 23, 2010 on the condition that he shall pay KRW 2,630,000,000 among the delinquent tax amount, and accordingly, the provisional disposition entry registration of the defendant Republic of Korea was cancelled on November 23, 2010.

2) On November 5, 2010, Defendant LJ ordered the cancellation of Defendant LJ’s provisional disposition on the condition that Defendant LJ’s claim 250,000,000 won against Defendant LJJ’s claim against Defendant LJD was accepted by Defendant LJ, and on November 24, 2010, Defendant LJ’s registration of provisional disposition was cancelled.

(j) Filing a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership transfer against the defendant Choi E-E's Republic of Korea

1) Defendant Choi E-E did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant real estate by HanD,

The registration of transfer of ownership as Seoul Northern District Court 2010Kahap10546 against Korea on November 30, 2010

In the process of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit. On June 9, 201, the Plaintiff had the highest 00 BB relationship with Korea-D on June 9, 201

The agreement on the sales contract of this case for the termination of the said lawsuit among the members present in company (hereinafter referred to as "agreement") shall be made June 201.

9. He/she made a judicial compromise on June 10, 201, with the content that "Korea-do shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on July 15, 2009 with respect to the Plaintiff" (which was not included in the agreement of June 9, 201).

1. The defendant Maximum EE shall pay 2,485,060,000 won in total to Korea-D, and the method of payment shall be as follows:

A. The defendant Choi E-E shall have jurisdiction over the case before the date of judicial reconciliation and mediation

Of KRW 2,485,060,000, KRW 1,015,00,000 shall be paid in cash, and the above KRW 1,015,00,000 shall be paid to persons designated by Handi or Handi.

B. Defendant EE shall pay the remainder of KRW 1,470,060,000 to the lessee, etc. of the instant real estate.

2. HanD receives 1-A. (1,015,00,000 won) money from Defendant Choi E, and at the same time delivers documents necessary for the ownership transfer of the instant real estate to Defendant Choi E, and returns to the said real estate third floor above the above real estate building, underground first floor lease agreement (200,000 won), and first vessel 00, which was paid to Defendant Choi E in return for the payment to Defendant Choi E.I.D.

7. 다만, 한DD ��피고 최EE는 본 합의서의 내용과는 달리, 서울북부지방법원 2010가합 10546 사건에 대해서는 한DD이 피고 최EE의 청구를 인용한다는 내용의 재판상 화해를 한다.

2) The main contents of the agreement made on June 9, 201 are as follows.

3) Defendant LAE paid 1,015,00,000 won to DaD and received a notarial deed delivered to DaD00 and the original of the lease agreement made in the name of Defendant LAE and PA0.

4) On June 11, 2011, Defendant LE paid the traffic inducement charges, environmental improvement charges, etc. imposed on the instant real estate, and the provisional disposition at Aa Si and subsequent attachment and provisional attachment registration at Aa Si or A Si 00, which was completed on June 20, 201 with the consent of Aa Si, and thereafter, revoked the ownership transfer registration under the name of PP real estate trust. Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate to Defendant LE on the same day.

C. Establishment of collateral security after the instant sales contract

1) On December 8, 2010, Defendant LE subrogated for the N Savings Bank, etc. for the N Savings Bank, etc., and was transferred by the N Savings Bank, etc. on the same day. Defendant LE created a pledge on the said mortgage to 00 mutual savings banks on the same day. On June 20, 2011, after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on June 20, 201, the N Savings Bank created a pledge on the said mortgage amount of KRW 21,750,000 with the maximum debt amount.

2) On September 2, 2011, Defendant FF Bank granted loans of KRW 14,50,000,000 to Defendant FF Bank and repaid the remainder loans of KRW 14,592,363,013, which are remainder loans to NF Savings Bank, to Defendant FF Bank, and subsequently cancelled the registration of pledge right and the registration of the establishment of the above collateral right, Defendant FF Bank established a collateral security right of KRW 18,850,00,000 with respect to the instant real estate on the same day.

3) On November 30, 201, Defendant LAE created, with respect to the instant real estate, the right to collateral security of KRW 3,500,000,000 with respect to the maximum debt amount, the right to collateral security of KRW 800,000 with respect to the deceased LAH on the same day, and the right to collateral security of KRW 500,000,000 with respect to the maximum debt amount to Defendant ○○○○○ on December 12, 2011.

(l) Death of the deceased Park H and succession participation of the proceedings and succession participation of the successor;

GH died on May 29, 2014, when the instant lawsuit was pending, and died on May 29, 2014, which is a child, and Park II, Parkb, Park Ccc,

Park Dod has succeeded to its rights and obligations, and on June 24, 2014, the Gmh H H’s right to collateral was transferred to Park II on the ground of the assignment of claims as of March 30, 2014. However, on September 12, 2014, Park II, Parkbbb, Park ccccc, Park Doddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd’s equity ownership ownership ownership ownership

2. Determination as to the primary claim of 00 ships

A. As to the legal act subject to revocation of fraudulent act

1) The Plaintiff (Ship00) asserts that, as long as the Defendant LE did not perform its obligation to pay the remainder of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to rescind the instant sales contract, and that, on June 9, 2011, a separate agreement was concluded on the grounds that the instant real estate ownership was transferred to Defendant LBho, the legal act subject to revocation of fraudulent act is not the instant sales contract as of July 15, 2009, but the agreement as of June 9, 201.

2) As to this, the Defendants are liable by Handi to its obligations in the most efficient performance relationship with Handi as the most efficient obligation.

Since the notification of cancellation was given without providing performance, the notification of cancellation was invalid, and the agreement of June 9, 201 is merely a judicial compromise for the implementation of the contract of this case under the effective status of the contract of this case, and it does not constitute a new legal act.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the facts recognized as above and the following circumstances known therefrom, the agreement dated June 9, 201 is not a new legal act different from the instant sales contract, but merely an agreement for the implementation of the instant sales contract. Therefore, it cannot be deemed a legal act subject to revocation of a fraudulent act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary claim by Korea-E on June 9, 201 under the premise that the agreement between Korea-D and the Defendant E is separate from the instant sales contract, and is subject to revocation of a fraudulent act, is without merit.

(1) Article 2 of the instant sales contract provides that a seller shall deliver all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to a purchaser and cooperate in the registration procedure at the same time with the receipt of the balance of the purchase price. In addition, Article 3 provides that a seller shall transfer a complete ownership by removing defects and burdens of the rights that restrict the exercise of ownership established on the instant real estate

However, as seen earlier, since Han-do did not cancel the registration of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the instant real estate, it may refuse the performance of its obligations until Han-do fulfilled its obligations. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant Choi-E did not have delayed the performance of the obligation to pay the remainder, and therefore, the cancellation of the instant sales contract is invalid.

(2) The agreement made on June 9, 201 was paid KRW 2,485,060,00 to DaD, and among which, among which, the agreement made on June 9, 201, Defendant DoD and DoD specify the amount to be paid in cash and the amount to succeed to the lessee’s obligations regarding the instant real estate to the person designated by DoD or DoD, and clarify the time of delivery of documents necessary for the transfer of ownership on the instant real estate. The amount of KRW 2,485,060,000 also exceeds KRW 10% of the sales price agreed upon by DoD on July 15, 2009. Therefore, the agreement made on June 9, 2011 is a concrete method and time of payment of remainder on the premise that the instant sales contract becomes effective, and is merely a detailed agreement for the implementation of the instant sales contract.

(3) In a situation where Defendant E filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate with respect to DD premised on the validity of the instant sales contract, there is no ground to view that the instant sales contract was extinguished by the agreement made on June 9, 2011.

3. Determination as to the Preliminary Claim of PPB, thisCC

(a) The starting point of exclusion period;

1) In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that it would prejudice the obligee. This is not sufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor performed a disposal act of the property, and further, it is necessary to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to injure the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da71684, Jan. 13, 201). In particular, the obligor's act of selling real estate, which is only one of its own property, and changing the obligor into money easily for consumption, constitutes a fraudulent act against the obligee and is presumed to have an obligor's intent to injure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420, Apr. 14, 1998). If the obligee was aware of the fact that the obligor disposed of the real estate, the sole property, barring any special circumstances.

2) The plaintiff (pre-paid0) asserts that (1) the starting point of the exclusion period is calculated from the time when the registration of transfer of ownership under the instant sales contract was made and the shortage of joint security was realized, or (2) it is difficult for the creditor to expect from the debtor to exercise the right of revocation under the circumstance that it is impossible for the creditor to transfer ownership to the beneficiary, and that (3) since the instant sales contract and the agreement dated June 9, 201 constitute a series of acts constituting a single legal act, it should be the starting point of the exclusion period of the market price on June 9, 201, when the legal act is completed.

3) However, the completion of the ownership transfer registration is merely the implementation of the instant sales contract, and cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act separate from the sales contract, and thus cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim (1) that the starting point should be the starting point is without merit.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that it is impossible for Han-D to cancel the entry registration of provisional injunction established on the real estate in this case to allow the defendant Choi E-E to transfer ownership, and such circumstance alone does not make it difficult to expect the plaintiff(s) to exercise the right of revocation. Therefore, the plaintiff(s)-2 of the plaintiff(s) is without merit.

Since July 15, 2009, the instant sales contract was specified as paying KRW 23,800,000 in return for the sale of the instant real estate from the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract. Therefore, since the agreement on June 9, 201 cannot be deemed as completing the instant sales contract beyond the method of performing the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s assertion on (3) is without merit.

B. Determination as to whether the exclusion period expires

1) In full view of the evidence adopted earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 49, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 57, 76, 78, 97, 110, and 117 (including closed numbers), and the evidence Nos. 7, 76, 78, 97, 110, and 117 (including closed numbers), the testimony of Park Jong-chul witness II, some testimony of LL witness at the trial, and the whole purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was aware of the intention of DoD as well as the fact that the sales contract of this case constituted fraudulent act around July 15, 2009, which was at the time of the instant sales contract. However, it is evident that the record was raised on December 30, 201, which was after one year from the lawsuit of this case, and eventually, the exclusion period and the exclusion period of the claim of the plaintiff of this case was also unlawful.

2) Maximum 00B: The exclusion period map;

(1) The 00 LB has maintained a close relationship with DD to allow its father to attend as if he was his father. At the same time, for more than 15 years, it has operated a variety of e-mails jointly in the Seoul metropolitan area, etc.

(2) Around April 2003, 100 LB created a right to collateral security (right to collateral security (right to collateral security) under its own name after obtaining a loan of KRW 9,500,000,000 from aff bank in its own name upon its request when DoD was unable to obtain a loan due to low credit rating of 00,000,000 Do 00 Do 00,000 Do 00 Do 200 Do 200 Do 200 Do 200, but Do 200 established a right to collateral security (right to collateral security (right to collateral security) on the real estate owned by Do 2 was due to the failure to perform a promise to immediately change the debtor, and eventually, the said real estate was sold through a voluntary auction procedure, and at the time of the instant sales contract, it was liable for the remaining loans

(3) At around September 2003, 200: (a) during the process of purchase of 00,000 00,000 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 d 901,001, 1001, as in the case of the above Dora, 000 LAD borrowed KRW 6,000,000 from GG Savings Bank on behalf of NA and set up a collateral security right on one’s own real estate in lieu of NAD; and (b) during the process of the sale of the instant real estate, Korea had sold the said real estate through a voluntary auction, while Korea has not performed the obligation to pay interest on the direct loan due to the failure to perform the obligation to change the debtor. At the time of the sale of the instant real estate, Korea had also assumed the remaining obligation

(4) At the time of the instant sales contract, prior 00 LB was managing the instant real estate owned by HanD, and agreed on the method of concluding the instant sales contract and paying the sales price on behalf of HanD on behalf of HanD. Not only endeavoring to obtain the consent of Defendant ○○○○ and the person in charge of Aa Si, who is the person holding the right to provisional disposition prohibiting disposal, but also actively involved in the process of judicial settlement on June 10, 201 by preparing the agreement dated 9, 201 and preparing the judicial compromise agreement on June 10, 201.

(5) On December 29, 2009, PPB attempted to recover claims against DD in the sense of receiving KRW 150,000,000 from Defendant E. In addition, after January 20, 2010, DD established a plan to collect claims in preparation for cases where the sales contract of this case was not implemented, such as receiving a seizure or assignment order for the claim for the claim for the refund of real estate surplus dividends on PP real estate in the instant real estate trust, or attaching the claim for ownership transfer registration, by obtaining an order for seizure or assignment order for the claim for the refund of real estate surplus dividends on the instant real estate held by PP real estate trust.

(6) Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the first 00 LB knew that at the time of the instant sales contract, the instant real estate, which was the only property under excess of the debt, was sold to the Defendant Maximum E, by means of having been unable to repay a considerable amount of debt to himself, etc., and that part of the instant sales contract was actively involved in the conclusion of the instant sales contract with the aim of having been repaid a claim against DoD as part of the instant sales price.

(iii) Prior 00 CC: A period of exclusion has elapsed

(1) Defendant LVA filed a suit against Defendant LVA against Defendant LVA on the first floor of the first floor of the instant building 00,000, and Defendant LVA filed a counterclaim against Defendant LVA on the ground that it is a lessee of the said VVA’s deposit amount of KRW 1,00,000,000. On August 22, 2013, 200, the Seoul High Court affirmed the judgment of the first instance court that Defendant LVA was the genuine lessee who leased the said VV, rather than the written lease agreement between Defendant LVA and Defendant LVAC, No. 00, written No. 100,000, and concluded that the document was a document prepared to receive the purchase price by seizure between the taxation authority, etc., and rejected the counterclaim (the judgment of the lower court became final and conclusive on 16, 200,000).

(2) Prior 00CC was the most deceptive act of 00 BB, and the notarial deed (Evidence A No. 1-2) claimed as the preserved claim of this case also signed and sealed as the debtor on behalf of 100 LBD.

(3) In accordance with the agreement on December 29, 2009 between Defendant Choi E and HanD on December 29, 2009, PPD obtained a confirmation from Defendant Choi E to pay KRW 500,000,000 when delivering the instant building, or affixed his seal on a lease agreement in which the deposit amount is KRW 1,00,000,000 at face value or KRW 1,00,000 at face value.

(4) In the auction procedure regarding the instant real estate conducted through the application for voluntary auction by the NSaving Bank, etc., prior to the reporting of the right to claim KRW 1,000,000 on February 25, 2010 as a lessee holding the claim amounting to KRW 1,00,000,000. The payment of KRW 350,000,000 is to be made according to the agreement between Defendant E and HanD as of June 9, 2011.

(5) Around October 8, 2010, Hando has prepared a plan for recovery of claims in preparation for cases where the sales contract of this case is not implemented by Hando as a means of seizure and assignment of the claim for recovery of surplus dividends of the instant real estate held in the PP real estate trust.

(6) During the operation of PPPD, PPD had been in arrears with the money and taxes that were borrowed by using each ownership as a security for each ownership, the auction or public auction proceedings for the buildings where the said HPPD had been conducted from the first half of 2005 to the year of 2007. At that time, PPPCC, along with DD with PP 601, 701, 701, 801, 6, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 00, 000, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00,000, 00,000, 00,000.

On March 20, 2007, the appraisal of the building 11,200,000,000 won was involved in reporting the false lien and the claim for the lease deposit on the building which is equivalent to 6,045,00,000 won, and on March 20, 2007, the above "mmpra" building was purchased in its name in its name.

(7) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant sales contract was known that, at the time of the instant sales contract, Korea-do only was sold to Defendant DoD, the instant real estate, which was the only property under excess of its liabilities, such as having been unable to repay considerable debts to itself, etc. at the time of the instant sales contract, or that at least, it was known that the instant sales contract was constituted a fraudulent act before December 30, 201, which was from December 30, 201 to December 30, 2010, when the instant lawsuit was filed.

[Judgment of the court below] Even if 00 E.CC. different views on the point of time when she knew a fraudulent act, it is not sufficient to recognize that 00CC’s preserved claim exists solely with the descriptions described in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 65-1, 65-5, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence and the overall purport of the arguments adopted earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) On June 12, 200, 00CC submitted 1 to 0.1 to 0.1 to 0,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,00 won of 20,000 won of 20,00 won of 20,00 won of 20,000 won of 36,00 won of 36,00,00 won of 20,000 won of 36,00.

(2) The Defendant LE filed a lawsuit against 00 U.S.A. seeking the name of the VV Ba on the first floor of the instant building and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. At the time, the 00CC asserted that it was the lessee of the instant building and the NAD paid deposit KRW 1,00,000,000 to NAD upon submitting the same documentary evidence as A’s No. 62-1 to 5.

(3) In relation to the sale and purchase contract of the instant real estate, the Prior0CC claimed either the exercise of rights to dividends in the event that the instant real estate was sold by auction, or the right against the Defendant Choi E, on the premise that it is the lessee of the first floor of the instant building. However, it did not separately claim a claim based on the said notarial deed.

(4) On December 29, 2009, in lieu of receiving KRW 350,000,000, according to the agreement between Defendant Maximum EE and KoreaD on June 9, 201, PPCC returned to Korea, on December 29, 2009, a promissory note No. 1,000,000, and a lease contract of KRW 1,000,000,000, which was drafted by Defendant Maximum EE. However, despite the difference in the above amount at the time, PPCC did not raise an objection or demand corresponding measures to Korea before the filing of the instant lawsuit.)

4. Determination as to the conjunctive claim of Preliminary 00 Han

A. The party's assertion on the preserved claim

1) On May 10, 2003, the Plaintiff (Ship00) concluded a business agreement with DaD on May 10, 2003, and paid DoD KRW 1,000,000,000 as investment deposit to DoD. On March 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a claim for refund of investment deposit amount of KRW 1,000,000,000 as set forth in the business agreement.

2) As to this, Defendant LE and LJ asserts that the actual business operators of “BA clubs”, which claimed that P0.A. made an investment in PPE and PJ, are KoreaD, and PPA argues that PPP is merely the so-called “BA president,” whose PPP pursuant to Han-D’s instructions, and that PPP is merely a false claim.

(b) Reserve claims of 00 KoreaA: non-recognition;

1) According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 4, it is recognized that 00,000,000 won, which is 10,00,000 won for investment and loss, shall be distributed according to the contract term of 3 years, investment deposit of 1,00,000,000 won, and 10% of equity shares of 10,00,000 won for investment at the expiration of the contract term of 0,000 Do 00,000 Do 000 Do 000 Do 000 Do 1000 Do 200 Do 200 Do 100 Do 1000 Do 100 Do 100 Do 200 Do 100 Do 100

2) However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 10, 61, Eul evidence No. 81, and Eul evidence No. 110 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that there was a preserved claim of KRW 1,00,000,000 against Han DoD of 00, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that there was a preserved claim of Han 00,00,000 is without merit.

(1) There is no evidence to deem that 00 Korea A has actually paid 1,00,000,000 investment deposit to DoD in accordance with the above contract for the same business. Even if 1,00 Korea A has invested 1,00,000,000 won, 'ii) Korea has acquired the ownership of DoD on April 3, 2003 and transferred Doo ownership on March 25, 2008 due to the public auction. The 6th of the above building, 9 provisional attachment registrations such as Aa, P Savings Bank, Korea, and 7 and 8th of the above building, and 8 provisional attachment registrations and 3 provisional attachment registrationss were also cancelled, respectively, and 00,000 A had been cancelled due to the above public auction. In light of the above circumstances, there was no doubt that Do was returned to 00,000,000 won.

(2) Although the Plaintiff (preferred00) asserted that the said contract was terminated on March 2008, there is no objective evidence to deem that the said contract was terminated at the time. Even if the Plaintiff notified the termination of the said contract, the said contract is subject to the loss, as it is deducted from the investment deposit if the loss was incurred, and thus, it cannot be claimed for the full return of the investment deposit without settlement based on the residual property at the time of the termination of the contract. In addition, it is not clear in the provisions of the said contract as to whether the investment deposit should be fully returned even if the investment return exceeding the investment deposit was made during the contract period.

(3) 선00 한AA이 위 동업계약 해지를 근거로 한DD을 상대로 자신의 채권을 확보하기 위한 어떠한 조치를 취하였다고 볼 증거가 없다. 오히려 선00 한AA은 한00이 QQ상사에 부담하던 1,430,000,000원의 채무를 연대보증하였다.

(4) The highestqq, which was in charge of the accounting division of the niversary club operated by Han-B, is stated to be the so-called "batary president" who manages the niverse club according to Han-D's instruction (the highestq, as stated in evidence No. 59, reversed the above statement, but it cannot be believed as it is in view of the relationship with the highestB).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the primary claim and the preliminary claim of PP 00 A are all dismissed as it is without merit, and both the claim of PP 00 B and PP CC is dismissed as it is unlawful. Since the judgment of the first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the appeal of the remaining Defendants except the defendant FF Bank is accepted, and the judgment of the first instance court, including the revised claim added and modified in the trial, is decided as per Disposition.

List 00 List

1. MaximumB

2. ThisCC;

3. The AA