1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B, June 2013.

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts” among the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is determined to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. According to the facts of existence of preserved claims and establishment of fraudulent act 1). At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, B was obligated to pay the principal and interest of loan due to the excess of the repayment period of the loan to the Plaintiff, and entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the status of excess of the obligation without any specific property other than each of the instant real estate. Thus, barring special circumstances, the instant sales contract is acknowledged as fraudulent act against the Plaintiff. In addition, the instant sales contract is acknowledged as fraudulent act against the Plaintiff

hereinafter the same shall apply.

In light of the respective description and the overall purport of the pleading, it is sufficient to recognize the intention of the Defendant’s intention, and therefore, the Defendant’s intention is presumed to be the Defendant’s intention. On the other hand, the Defendant’s transaction of land was conducted on two occasions on June 14, 2013 and June 20, 2013 between B and the Defendant on two occasions, and thus, should be identified as a single process by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the process of concluding the instant sales contract; and (b) the circumstance that B disposed of the real estate owned in succession at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the base point of time for B’s property status is not June 20, 2013, but June 14, 2013, and B was not in excess of the debt on June 14, 2013.

Therefore, the instant sales contract cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.

'' asserts to the effect that ‘' is.

However, on June 14, 2013, it is difficult to find out special circumstances to regard the sale and purchase acts of this case as a separate disposal act only in regard to separate real estate and as a single disposal act, and it is determined on June 14, 2013 as property status as of June 14, 2013.

Even if the plaintiff and the defendant were involved, they are against B.