2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 508,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 10% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 90% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

○ Preliminary claims: It is identical to the text of the order.

(a) Conclusion, etc. of credit guarantee agreements;

(1) The Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) to guarantee the performance of each obligation of Nonparty Co., Ltd. as indicated in the following table (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above credit guarantee agreements”) and the representative director B of Nonparty Co., Ltd. jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of Nonparty Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff according to each of the instant credit guarantee agreements.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) According to each credit guarantee contract of this case, when the Plaintiff performed the guaranteed obligation of the non-party company, the non-party company and the joint guarantor provide that the non-party company and the joint guarantor shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of the guaranteed obligation and the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of the guaranteed obligation to the Plaintiff by the rate prescribed by the Plaintiff (12% per annum from December 1, 2012 to the date of repayment) from the date the guaranteed obligation was performed to the date of repayment.

(b) Occurrence of a credit guarantee accident and plaintiff's subrogation;

(1) The non-party company was issued a credit guarantee agreement under each of the instant credit guarantee agreements and provided as security to the Daegu Bank and the Han L&C, and received a loan from the Daegu Bank and received goods from the Han L&C.

(2) However, on October 14, 2014, the non-party company caused a credit guarantee accident (or bankruptcy), and accordingly, on October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 300,000,000 to the Hanan L&C on October 27, 2014, and KRW 198,814,90 on October 29, 2014 by subrogation to the Daegu Bank, respectively, KRW 498,814,90 (=30,000,000 + + KRW 198,814,900).

(3) On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff collected KRW 2,248,760, and KRW 1,063,200 in relation to the obligations of loans from the Daegu Bank on October 29, 2014 from the non-party company for the payment of the purchase price of the Hanel L&C, and appropriated the principal for the collection of the loans from the Daegu Bank on October 29, 2014. The amount of damages for final delay in the collection is KRW 1,088 (=349 +739). The Plaintiff failed to recover the remainder of the payment of the purchase price of KRW 495,502,940 (=498,814,90, - 2,248,760).

(4) As for the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company B and the Plaintiff jointly and severally, KRW 495,504,028 (-495,502,940 + KRW 1,088) and its 297,751,240 (=300,000,000 - 2,248,760) from October 27, 2014; KRW 197,751,700 (-198,814,900 - 1,063,200) for the Plaintiff; KRW 12% per annum from the following day to January 8, 2015; and KRW 295% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015; and KRW 196% per annum from the next day to the next day to the next day of the Plaintiff’s dispositive act; and KRW 165% per annum from the next day to the next day of the dispositive act.

(1) B entered into a sales contract on April 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant as to the fourth share (hereinafter referred to as “share of each of the instant real estate”) among the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet, which was owned by B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on June 12, 2014.

(2) At the time of the sale and purchase as above, several registrations of establishment of the right to collateral security and right to lease on a deposit basis were completed as listed below on the entire real estate of this case, the market price of which is 2.5 billion won, but the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security and right to lease on a deposit basis was cancelled following the sale and purchase.

A person shall be appointed.

【Fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9, and 12 (including each number in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

B At the time of entering into the instant sales contract with the Defendant on April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B was not yet accrued, but there had already been a legal relationship under each of the credit guarantee agreements of this case, which serves as the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B, and there was a high probability of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B, which occurred only about six months after the instant sales contract was concluded, and the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B is realized by performing each of the guaranteed obligations after the occurrence of each of the guaranteed obligations. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B becomes a preserved claim for fraudulent act.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

① As the Defendant and B actually concluded the instant sales contract at the end of August 2012 or around the beginning of September, 2012, it is necessary to determine whether the instant sales contract was fraudulent as of the above point of time. Therefore, as the instant sales contract was concluded by the Nonparty Company, the primary debtor, on or before the two years and one month prior to the occurrence of the credit guarantee accident, it cannot be deemed that there was a high probability as to the establishment of the Plaintiff’

② Around August 2012 to September 9, 2012, the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract, and from around September 10, 2012 to transfer the sales price to B, paid in full around February 20, 2014. Therefore, even at least as of the point at which B received a balance on February 20, 2014 and written a written confirmation to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that there was a high probability as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was established at the time of the occurrence of the guarantee accident, since it was eight months prior to the point at which the guarantee accident occurred.

③ Even if the instant sales contract was concluded on April 30, 2014, the time is six months prior to the time of the occurrence of the guarantee accident, and the Plaintiff also extended the guarantee period to the non-party company on April 10, 2014 and June 5, 2014, it cannot be deemed that there was a high probability as to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity.

(2) Determination

(A) At any time, whether there was a legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act should be determined with due care, taking into account the significant impacts on the interests between the parties, and the date on which the legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act was actually committed shall be determined as the standard. However, barring any special circumstances, it is inevitable to determine whether such fraudulent act was actually committed, centering on the date on which the grounds for registration appears based on a disposal document, barring any other special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da41589, Nov. 8, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, each of the instant real estate register as of June 12, 2014, stating that the grounds for registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant with respect to 4/10 of the shares as of June 12, 2014 is "sale and purchase on April 30, 2014." In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to reverse the above registry by the testimony of Eul and Eul witness. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant sales contract was established on April 30, 2014 because there was no reason to view the Defendant's transfer of the shares from February 14, 2011 to February 20, 2014 to the extent that it had been recorded on the above 20/100 of the total amount of shares transferred from February 20, 2014.

(B) A claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation ought to arise before a fraudulent act is performed. However, at the time of a fraudulent act, there is a high probability of having already been established legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of a claim in the near future. In fact, where a claim has been created in the near future since its probability has been realized, such claim may also become a preserved claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 201). Here, “the probability of” as a requirement for the recognition of the obligee’s right of revocation with respect to a claim or obligation arising after the obligor’s disposal of property should not be limited to the extent that it is possible to establish a claim or obligation in the future. At least, there is an objective circumstance that can accelerate the obligor’s intention of injury, and thus, it should be determined to the extent that the obligor’s act of disposal of property has been performed at least 20 times and at least 20 times and at least 20 times and at least 16, etc., the obligor’s underlying or 20.

According to the above facts, although the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was created after April 30, 2014, which was the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff had already been concluded with the Plaintiff prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, each of the credit guarantee agreements between the Plaintiff and B, which form the basis for the establishment of the said claim for indemnity.

Furthermore, as to whether there was a high probability that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B was established at the time of the instant sales contract, it was difficult to consider the following circumstances, namely, B’s circumstance around April 30, 2014, which was the time of the instant sales contract. From June 2014, it stated that since it was difficult for the Plaintiff to claim for reimbursement of damages against the Plaintiff’s credit card company from June 2014, the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee company continued to receive loans or cash services from the Plaintiff’s credit card company at the time of the instant sales contract in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee contract was concluded and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to claim for the extension of the period of each of the instant credit guarantee contracts without any additional credit guarantee period from the date of the instant sales contract to August 4, 2014, each of which was the first credit guarantee company’s final interest on the non-party 3 and 10,000,000 won after the expiration of the period of each of the instant credit guarantee contracts.

(b) Insolvent;

As a result of the fact-finding conducted by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport against Daegu Bank, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., according to Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 31 and the fact-finding conducted by this court on the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, comprehensively taking into account the witness Eul's testimony as a whole, B's active and passive properties around April 30, 2014, which was concluded on the witness Eul's testimony, are as follows. In light of their positive and passive properties, at least KRW 1,015,407,136 (=2,87,737,446 Won -1,872,30,310 won).

A person shall be appointed.

(c) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

According to the above facts, B sold and disposed of shares of each of the instant real estate, which is the only property having the value of collateral in excess of the debt, thereby deepening the shortage of joint collateral by reducing the liability property which is the joint collateral of creditors. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the sales contract of this case is a fraudulent act against creditors including the Plaintiff.

In addition, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, B was in a property status more than the active property, and B was well aware that the representative director of the non-party company, who is the primary debtor, would have claimed for the performance of the obligation for indemnity between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff due to the difficulties in the circumstances of the non-party company, and in such a situation, in light of the overall circumstances indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the disposal of each of the instant real estate shares, which are the joint security of the general creditors, to the Defendant, B was aware that the conclusion of the instant sales contract would prejudice the general creditors, and further, it is presumed that the Defendant

D. Determination on the Defendant’s bona fide assertion

The Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, did not know at all that the B’s property condition was not good, and asserted that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that other creditors were damaged by the instant sales contract.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that the beneficiary was a fraudulent act. In this case, the beneficiary bears the burden of proving that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, and there should be objective and acceptable evidence in recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide. On the basis of only the unilateral statement of the debtor or a statement that is merely a third party's trend, the beneficiary at the time of the fraudulent act should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da60466, Jul. 22, 2010). In this case, there is no objective and objective evidence to recognize the defendant's good faith. Rather, as seen earlier, there is no evidence to support the financial situation or transaction circumstance of B in relation to the relationship with B, and it is difficult to view the conclusion process or transaction details of the sales contract in this case as normal, and there is no objective material about whether the defendant fully paid the purchase price after the fraudulent act after the conclusion of the sales contract in this case.

(e) Method of reinstatement and scope of revocation of fraudulent act;

(1) Method of restitution

As seen earlier, since the sales contract for each of the instant real estate shares constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, the revocation of the fraudulent act and the order to restore the real estate itself, such as cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, should be ordered. Thus, the entire maximum debt amount of each of the instant real estate should be KRW 30,000,000, the maximum debt amount of each of the instant real estate as seen earlier, and KRW 100,000,000, the creditors' right to collateral and the maximum debt amount of each of the instant real estate as of March 2, 2004, and the Pacific City Co., Ltd., Ltd., the creditors' right to collateral (the company divided into the Pacific Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as "the above two companies") were established on December 20, 2006, and thus, the Defendant’s revocation of the registration of creation of collateral on July 7, 2014 with respect to the said real estate, and thus, it should be revoked within the scope of the creditors’ joint collateral value of the first secured.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff asserted that the above mortgage-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-backed security-based security-related security-based security-based security-related security-related security-related security-based security-related security-related security-based security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related security-related market.

(2) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and compensation for value

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act and the scope of the amount that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the value after cancelling a fraudulent act through health care, cancellation of a right to collateral security, etc., the revocation and compensation for value should be limited to the smaller of the amount compared with the joint collateral value of the Plaintiff’s secured claim and each of the instant real estate which is the object of the fraudulent act. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the market value of each of the instant real estate at the time of the closing of pleadings is KRW 1,00,000 ( KRW 2,50,000,000) and KRW 4,000,000, KRW 209,000, KRW 200, KRW 3000, KRW 200, KRW 9600 as stated below, KRW 200, KRW 3600, KRW 200, KRW 3000, KRW 4000, KRW 200.

A person shall be appointed.

Therefore, the sales contract concluded between the Defendant and B on the share of each of the instant real estate shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 508,00,000, which is the smaller of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim and the joint collateral value of the instant real estate subject to fraudulent act. It shall be deemed that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 508,00,000 and that of KRW 508,000 as a substitute for restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act, and that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 55

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Suh Jeong-hee

Judge Full-time Reserve

Won =(197,751,700 won 12% 72/365) (197,751,700 won 265/365) + (197,751,700 won 15% X427/365))

2) On August 27, 2012, the J payment of KRW 30 million + the intermediate payment of KRW 70 million on August 31, 2012 + the intermediate payment of KRW 40 million on September 10, 2012 + the remainder on September 14, 2012

60 million won + The remainder of J 5 million won on September 23, 2013* on September 30, 2013 + The remainder of J 5 million won on September 30, 2013 + J 10 million Won on February 20, 2014

3) Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the total market value of each of the instant real estate was KRW 2,500,000,000, it is not that of the instant real estate B.

The value of the portion(4/10) is KRW 1,00,000,000 (=2,500,000,000 x 2/5).

4) B sold the above real estate to UN C&Electronic Co., Ltd. on February 27, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 25, 2014.

5) 29,853,448 + 100,45,232 + 100,456,082 +47,142,184 won

6) It is the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the Daegu Northernbuk-gu L site and building.

7) In the case of physical burdens created by only one of the real estates of this case 1 and 2, each of the parties to the lawsuit of this case shall be deemed to have been established in all the real estates.

There is no dispute over the establishment scope of fraudulent act and the scope of compensation for value.