1. The Plaintiff’s appeal as to the part of the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act against Defendant C and D and this court are exchanged in this court.

1. The reasons why this court shall state this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The apartment of this case is the property registered in title by E with the actual burden of the acquisition price. 2) However, Defendant B concluded the instant sales contract to sell the apartment of this case, which is the only property of E, to Defendant C and D according to E’s instruction and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, and thus, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to E’s obligee.

Therefore, the instant sales contract should be revoked within the scope of KRW 362,639,364, which is within the scope of the joint collateral of the instant apartment (i.e., the market price of KRW 890,00,000 at the time of the closing of argument - KRW 527,360,636) with respect to an apartment at the time of the closing of argument, and Defendant C and D are obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 362,639,364 due to its restitution.

3) Meanwhile, even though Defendant B sold the instant apartment in title trust from Defendant C and D and received the purchase price, it did not refund the purchase price to E, Defendant B is obligated to return the apartment in title trust from the purchase price to the Plaintiff who subrogated the amount of KRW 165,139,364 (=692,50,000 - the amount of secured debt - the amount of secured debt 527,360,636) calculated by deducting the amount of secured debt relating to the apartment at the time of the purchase and sale contract, as unjust enrichment. (B) Determination as to whether the instant apartment in title trust is property trusted to Defendant B, pursuant to Article 830(1) of the Civil Act (1) of the Civil Act, the real estate acquired by one of the parties’ sole title during the marriage is presumed to be property unique to its nominal owner, so in order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse actually bears the price of the relevant real estate and actually owns it.