1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty B with this Court for the claim for reimbursement of reimbursement, and the said court rendered a judgment on September 26, 2014 that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 30,814,511 won and 30,713,535 won among them, 15% per annum from May 30, 2014 to August 20, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 21, 2014.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on February 10, 2014, B concluded a sales contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the purchase price of KRW 310,00,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future as the Seoul East East District Court Gangseo-dong District Court’s receipt No. 6867, Feb. 24, 2014. However, prior to that, the instant real estate was registered as the maximum debt amount of KRW 156,00,000, the debtor, B, and the bank of the new bank of the mortgagee, the mortgagee, as the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage 1”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 40948,00,000,000, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant’s future, as the registration office’s establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage 2”).

(c) The registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of the first place shall be made on April 22, 2014, and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the second place for the same year

3. 10.Each 10.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that sold the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act that undermines the value of the obligees’ common security, including the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant sales contract should be revoked within the scope of compensation for value, and the Defendant is obliged to pay compensation for value to the Plaintiff

B. At the time of the instant purchase and sale contract by the Defendant, B is in excess of the obligation.