The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court, citing the first instance judgment, determined that C, which was in excess of the obligation, concluded an accord and satisfaction agreement with the Defendant on each of the instant real estate, constitutes a fraudulent act against other creditors, and the Defendant also seems to have been aware of such circumstances.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding fraudulent act, insolvency, and beneficiary’s bad faith, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Where a legal act on certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act with respect to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, in principle, revocation of the fraudulent act and an order to recover the real estate itself, such as cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

On the other hand, where real estate on which a mortgage is established is transferred to a fraudulent act, 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.

However, in the event that the registration of establishment of a mortgage is cancelled due to repayment after a fraudulent act, the revocation of the fraudulent act and the order to recover the real estate itself would be an order to recover the portion that was not initially secured by the general creditors, and would result in a violation of fairness.

Therefore, in such cases, both the creditor and the beneficiary want to return the original object, and even according to the return of the original object, there is no particular reason to believe that there is no particular obstacle to achieving the objective of creditor's right of revocation, such as preserving the obligation for the general creditors, to the extent of the balance calculated by deducting the secured obligation amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate.