The judgment below

The part against Defendant E and F shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The grounds of appeal by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and C as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and C are asserted in the grounds of appeal by the obligee. Since restitution as an effect of obligee’s revocation is in principle a return of originals, it should have been ordered to return originals, in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the return of originals by obligee’s right of revocation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking restitution along with the revocation of fraudulent act among the claims in the instant case is that the medical corporation D (the administrator of the rehabilitation company D as a beneficiary after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure was decided to terminate the rehabilitation procedure, and the medical corporation D again received a lawsuit as the Defendant, and the subsequent purchaser; hereinafter “Defendant D”) seek reimbursement against Defendant E and F, who are the subsequent purchaser, and does not seek reimbursement against Defendant B and C, who are in the status of the debtor or joint and several sureties, and the above part is not subject to adjudication against Defendant B and C.

Therefore, Defendant B and C’s above assertion cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. Determination on Defendant D’s grounds of appeal

(a) Where a juristic act on real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act shall be revoked and ordered to be restored to its original state in order to preserve the debtor's responsible property;

In principle, restitution due to the cancellation of fraudulent act shall be based on the method of returning originals. However, when it is impossible or considerably difficult to return originals, the value compensation as monetary compensation shall be allowed in lieu of returning originals.

Where rehabilitation procedures commence against a beneficiary of a fraudulent act or a subsequent purchaser, claiming the return of the debtor itself, which is the object of the fraudulent act, from the debtor to the debtor, along with the revocation of the fraudulent act, is the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).