Part concerning the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

1 List 1.

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of the facts recognized are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim (claim for Revocation of Fraudulent Act)

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff claims KRW 44,007,798 in total amount of construction price and loan to C, and thus, the sales contract concluded on November 25, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate between C and the Defendant or the payment contract concluded on December 3, 2014 constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor.

Therefore, in order to preserve each of the above claims as a creditor against C, the Plaintiff sought to pay the amount equivalent to the above claim amount to the Defendant with the cancellation of the above sales contract or the payment contract in substitution, together with the cancellation of the above sales contract or the payment in substitution.

B. 1) Determination 1) Whether there was a legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act between C and the defendant as to the pertinent real estate at a certain point is the nature of the legal act between C and the defendant, must be determined with careful consideration of the significant impact on the interests between the parties. Whether at any time a legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act was done shall be determined as of the date on which such fraudulent act was actually committed. However, barring any special circumstances, it shall be determined as to whether such fraudulent act was actually conducted based on the date on which the cause of registration appears based on the disposal document, referring to Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73138, 73145 Decided July 26, 2002.

Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da41589 Decided November 8, 2002 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da28819, 28826 Decided February 25, 2010, etc. Meanwhile, the presumption of registration is presumed to have been a juristic act that causes registration on the date of registration on the registry, as it is based on the presumption that there was a juristic act that causes registration on the date of registration.