1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, order against the defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: “At present, the auction procedure was deleted by the secured creditors of the above defendant, and the auction procedure of real estate was commenced by Incheon District Court E and F with respect to the apartment of this case. On the other hand, on March 23, 2016, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute surplus 30,306,789 won to the defendant. On March 29, 2016, the plaintiff added “The plaintiff received a decision of provisional disposition of prohibition of collection and disposal of claims with respect to the claim for the payment of dividends as the Incheon District Court 2016Kadan1547 on March 29, 2016,” and “the grounds for recognition” added “The corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of “Evidence No. 7 and 8” to “A” as the grounds for recognition” as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is consistent with the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases: (a) No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance and No. 6 or No. 8 of the judgment; and (b) thus, it is citing this part

The method of restoring to the original state in cases where a mortgage was acquired on the real estate on which a mortgage was created due to a fraudulent act but the mortgage was cancelled due to the execution of the preceding mortgage, but there was a dividend claim to be returned to the beneficiary. If the dividend claim was paid to the beneficiary, it should be done according to compensation equivalent to the same amount, and if it was not paid due to the provisional disposition prohibiting the payment of dividends, it should be done according to the execution of the transfer procedure of the dividend claim. This legal doctrine also applies to cases where the ownership of the real estate on which the mortgage was established was transferred as a fraudulent act and was distributed to the beneficiary who is the transferee due to the execution of the mortgage (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67806, May 27,