A. The Defendant’s assertion by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was subject to compulsory execution against each of the instant movable property based on the authentic copy of a promissory note with executory power of No. 326 of the document 2015, Pyeongtaek-si Law Firm 2015. Each of the instant movable property is subject to the Plaintiff’s right to transfer for security, and thus, the said right is denied.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the only property, in excess of the debt, was set up by the Plaintiff as security right for each of the instant movable property, and this constitutes a fraudulent act and sought revocation of the claim.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the obligor’s property as to the obligor’s assertion of revocation of a fraudulent act is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s property, if the obligor provided the obligor’s property to a certain obligee as payment in kind or as a collateral, barring any special circumstance, it would directly prejudice the interests of other obligees, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees, and the same applies even if the obligor’s property provided as payment in kind or as a collateral

(2) In light of the following: (a) In light of the fact that there is no dispute; (b) Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the serial number); (c) Party B’s testimony; and (c) the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the fact-finding on the Pyeongtaek-si of this court; and (d) the fact that a notary public of June 29, 2015 has a claim of KRW 10,000,000 based on the authentic copy of the promissorysory note No. 326, Jun. 29, 2015; (b) Party C prepared a loan for consumption with the real property transferred by a notary public of Korea-based law firm No. 852, Aug. 25, 2015; and (c) Party C prepared a loan for consumption with the real property mortgaged each of the instant claims for loans of KRW 5,00,000,000 as a collateral for each of the instant movable property.