2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant.

A. On December 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “the instant credit guarantee agreement”) with a co-defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) in the first instance trial on the joint and several guarantee basis of B, with a limit of KRW 38 million, with a branch office of the Foreign Exchange Bank (hereinafter “A”), the branch office of the Foreign Exchange Bank, the target debt trade finance, and the guarantee period from December 7, 2012 to December 6, 2013. A submitted a credit guarantee agreement issued by the Plaintiff and obtained trade financing loans within the limit of KRW 40 million from the said Foreign Exchange Bank.

B. On May 3, 2013, A had a diversity, and the Plaintiff repaid KRW 38,334,350 on May 29, 201 at the request of a foreign exchange bank.

C. Meanwhile, after completing the registration of ownership transfer in its own name on January 21, 2013 with respect to the forest of this case, B created the right to collateral security with the debtor A and the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million to the defendant Chang Steel on the same day.

B did not have any other active property than the instant forest land of KRW 223,128,00, and the small property was in excess of not only KRW 38,798,580 against the Plaintiff, but also KRW 230,000,000 against the Defendant, such as credit payment of KRW 73,916,383 for the Small and Medium Business Corporation, and KRW 127,241,550 for the Seoul Guarantee Insurance.

E. On the other hand, with respect to the instant forest land, the distribution schedule was prepared on June 29, 2015 that the Defendant received dividends of KRW 50,84,59 from the Suwon District Court F, which started with the Defendant’s voluntary auction application based on the above right to collateral security.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 11 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was a high probability of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B at the time of the instant credit guarantee agreement, which constitutes a preserved claim necessary for the obligee’s right of revocation.

However, B is a creditor by concluding the mortgage contract of this case with the defendant.