The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, as to the claim of this case, the court below revoked the sales contract of November 22, 2010 between B and C (hereinafter "the sale of this case") against the defendant who was transferred B-2/3 shares in the real estate of this case from B through C (hereinafter "C") through the creditor Eul, within the scope of KRW 73,576,438, which is the loan claim amount of the plaintiff's loan against B, and the defendant paid the above amount to the plaintiff as compensation for the equivalent value. In principle, if the legal act on the real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, the court below should revoke the fraudulent act and order the cancellation of transfer of ownership registration to restore the real estate itself. However, if a fraudulent act was committed with respect to the real estate on which the mortgage is established, it shall be deemed that the fraudulent act is established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured claim amount from the value of the real estate within the scope of the secured claim amount, and it shall be based on the value at the fact-finding court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da33734 Decided December 27, 2001, following the legal reasoning, it is acknowledged that B had been in excess of its obligation around November 201 sold the instant real estate share to B, but if calculating the amount of compensation for value based on the date of closing of argument in the court below, the “value of the instant real estate share” is the “value of the said real estate share,” and thus, there is no amount of compensation for value as the “value of the said real estate share,” because the “value of the said real estate share,” which was set up for the said real estate share, does not fall short of the “amount of the secured obligation of joint collateral security that was cancelled after the said sales contract,” and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek revocation