2. A stock company for the electric utility industry;

2. Revocation of an assignment contract concluded on April 8, 2013 between Defendant Young Engineering Co., Ltd and Defendant Young Industries Co., Ltd. within the limit of KRW 42,00,000 on the claims indicated in the separate sheet between Defendant Young Engineering Co., Ltd.

3. Defendant Electric Utility Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff 42,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of complete payment.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

5. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

A. On September 21, 201, the Plaintiff engaged in scrap metal processing and sales business, etc., paid KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant Young Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Young Engineering”) as advance payment under a scrap metal supply contract. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 54,222,52,520 from the said Defendant.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant Young Engineering to return the balance of advance payment and received the return of KRW 3,777,480 on December 24, 2012.

C. On April 8, 2013, Defendant Young Engineering transferred each of the claims listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant Nuclear Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Electric Power Industry”) (hereinafter “instant assignment contract”) and notified the fact of the assignment of claims on April 11, 2013, with respect to the Construction of Treatment Shipbuilding Marine Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Shipbuilding Construction”) and the aforementioned notice was received at that time.

D. The Defendant Young Engineering’s active property at the time of the instant assignment of claims is equivalent to KRW 316,096,00 in total of the bonds listed in the separate sheet; KRW 5,673,400 in total of the bonds for the construction and assembly of pit pumps among the bonds listed in the separate sheet; KRW 5,673,400 in total of the bonds for the construction of a new housing association of the Seoul District Housing Association; KRW 6,97,400 in total of the bonds for the construction of a new housing company; KRW 6,97,402 in total of KRW 6,97,400 in total of the bonds for the construction of a new housing company; KRW 6,97,400 in total of the bonds for the construction of a new housing association; KRW 65,798,100 in total of the bonds for the construction of a pit; KRW 151,706,786,786,400 in total of the bonds corresponding to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 20365,6063636.7.7.7.64.6.6

【Non-contentious facts, Gap 1-5, 7 evidence, Eul 1, 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant Young Engineering

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant Young Engineering is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining advance payment of KRW 42,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from February 15, 2012 to October 23, 2014 when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the above Defendant from February 15, 2012, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. A claim against the Defendant’s electric utility industry;

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff had the obligation to return the Defendant Young Engineering as counter-party at the time of the instant transfer of assignment of claims, and thus, is a preserved claim for fraudulent act.

B. The establishment of fraudulent act and bad faith of beneficiaries

According to the above facts of recognition, the act of transferring each claim listed in the separate sheet, which can be deemed as the only property in fact only in the status of Defendant Young Engineering’s debt excess, to Defendant Young Industries constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to other obligees, barring special circumstances, and is so underp.

In light of the financial status and the amount of debts of the ero engineering and the timing of the assignment of claims of this case, it is reasonable to see that Defendant Young Engineering was aware of the above disposal act that the joint collateral shortage of ordinary creditors deepens due to the above disposal act, and therefore, the intention of misunderstanding is recognized. Furthermore, Defendant Young Engineering, the beneficiary, is presumed to have been malicious.

As to this, the defendant electric power industry merely acquired each claim listed in the separate sheet to receive the above claim against the defendant Young Engineering, and the defendant Young Engineering engaged in a normal transaction with the other transaction parties around the time of the transfer of the claim of this case, and thus, it did not know that it is difficult to maintain its financial status. Thus, the defendant electric power industry asserts that it is a bona fide beneficiary.

On the other hand, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in Eul's evidence 8 by adding the entire arguments to the purport of the pleading, namely, the defendant's electric power plant suspended the supply of steel products to the defendant Young Engineering as of December 26, 201, and the defendant's electric power plant was equivalent to KRW 89,61,564 as of October 23, 201. The defendant's electric power plant was paid KRW 429,769,200,00 on December 40, 2012 with the payment of the above bonds from the defendant Young Engineering, and the defendant's electric power plant was urged to pay the above bonds to the defendant Young Engineering until December 28, 2013, and there is no evidence to support the above industry's assertion that the defendant's electric power plant had no reason to acknowledge otherwise.

(c) Methods of reinstatement;

According to the evidence Eul 2 and 8, the defendant electric power industry receives KRW 282,187,400, which is equivalent to the above credit amount from the construction of Daewoo Shipbuilding on June 5, 2013 with respect to the claims listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, and ② concerning the claims listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (an amount equivalent to KRW 33,908,60) on June 3, 2013, it is recognized that he/she transferred the above credit to Dasan Co., Ltd. and notified the above transfer to the construction of the same day. Since this falls under each case where it is impossible to return original products, the plaintiff may claim against the defendant electric power industry for the cancellation of the assignment contract of this case within the scope of the secured claim amount and compensation for the equivalent amount of the above credit amount (referring to, such as Supreme Court Decision 97Da58316, May 15, 198).

Therefore, as a fraudulent act, the assignment contract of this case between the Defendants is cancelled within the limit of KRW 42,00,000, which is the amount of the Plaintiff’s credit prior to the transfer, and as a compensation for its value, Defendant Electric Utility Industry is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 42,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day after the date this judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.

Judges Kim Jong-ap

Defendant Young Engineering Co., Ltd.

1. Claims equivalent to 282,187,400 won out of the price of the goods under a contract for the supply of goods made on November 30, 2012 for the supply of goods at the Axik apartment site;

2. The claim amounting to 33,908,600 won out of the amount of the amount of the goods under the contract for the supply of goods on January 16, 2012, regarding the Ulsan-B block apartment site.