(a) Indication of claims: The grounds for the instant claims against the defendant A are as shown in the attached Form;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The plaintiff's revocation of fraudulent act against the defendant B and compensation for the corresponding value;

A. (1) Under the credit guarantee agreement concluded with Defendant A, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 13,57,812 to D and E, a creditor of Defendant A (i.e., KRW 9,237,495 KRW 4,320,317) on August 21, 2017, pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement entered into with Defendant A, KRW 4,480 was incurred as additional guarantee fee, and KRW 197,80 was paid as additional guarantee fee, and later recovered KRW 27,767.

(2) However, around October 19, 2017, Defendant A sold 1/2 shares of the land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) released from Defendant B’s order (hereinafter “instant land for convenience”) to Defendant B in the so-called “excess of debt”) around October 19, 2017, at the time of high probability that the obligation to repay the Plaintiff’s indemnity, including the principal and interest on the reimbursement of the reimbursement, was high, and completed the registration of transfer of shares pursuant to Defendant B’s shares of the instant land on October 23, 2017. On October 23, 2017, Defendant A completed the registration of creation of a collateral security (hereinafter “instant land”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28447, Oct. 23, 2017>

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties, or each part of Gap 1-12 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

나. 양쪽의 주장에 대한 판단 (1) 위에서 인정한 사실관계에 의하면, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이 사건 매매계약은 피고 A의 채권자인 원고 등에 대한 관계에서 사해행위에 해당하므로, 그 사해행위의 취소와 아울러 그에 따른 원상회복으로서 가액배상(∵ 사해행위 이후 일부 담보권 소멸)을 구하는 원고의 이 사건 각 청구는 모두 정당하다.

(2) against this.