1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment except for the additional determination

2. The defendant asserts in the trial that the right to demand a distribution corresponding to the amount of the defendant's claim among the total amount of the claim in the position of the general creditor is offset against the plaintiff's right to demand a distribution as a result of revocation of the plaintiff's fraudulent act. However, in the event that an auction court makes an additional distribution, the creditor entitled to a distribution shall be the creditor who has lawfully demanded a distribution in the auction procedure. However, even though the mortgage contract was submitted to the auction court as a right to demand a distribution, if the mortgage contract was cancelled as a fraudulent act, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate demand for distribution (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da33069 Decided September 24, 2002). The right to demand a revocation of a fraudulent act between the debtor and the beneficiary in order to preserve the debtor's joint collateral property, and it is a system that allows the creditor, who is a beneficiary, to refuse a return of the amount of distribution from the debtor's general property, to the beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser for all creditors for the purpose of preserving the beneficiary's claim amount of distribution.