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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The obligee’s demand for the repayment of an obligation, as a natural exercise of its right, does not interfere with the obligee’s exercise of right, and the obligor cannot refuse the performance of obligation on the ground that there are other creditors. Thus, in a case where the obligor concludes a loan for consumption and approves compulsory execution for the repayment of the existing obligation to the obligee at the obligee’s request, and as a whole, does not decrease the obligor’s responsible property by preparing a notarial deed stating the purport of the obligor’s acceptance of compulsory execution, it cannot be deemed a fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the obligor’s responsible property would be different from the actual transfer of the obligor’

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, even in cases where a debtor, who is liable for the repayment of unjust enrichment, concluded a loan for consumption with the beneficiary and made a notarial deed stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution for the repayment of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstance that does not differ from the actual transfer of his/her own property to the beneficiary, the said act cannot be deemed as a new fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors, unless there exist any special circumstances that make it difficult to deem that the said act does not correspond to the actual transfer of the property to the beneficiary.

The beneficiary's claim against the debtor is merely a claim that has been acquired after the original fraudulent act, and the beneficiary is entitled to demand the distribution in the compulsory auction procedure for the restored property.