가. D가 2016. 2.경 원고로부터 6,000만원을 이자 월 1.5%로 정하여 빌렸다가, 2016. 10. 4.경 피고 B의 연대보증 아래 ‘2016. 12. 15.까지 원고에게 그 차용원리금을 갚기로 약정하였음’에도 불구하고 그 차용원리금을 전혀 갚지 못하자, 피고 B은 2016. 12. 16.경 D의 원고에 대한 위 차용원리금채무를 인수한 다음, 2016. 12. 22.경 원고에게 별지에 나오는 <차용증(☞ 갑 2-3), 이하 편의상 ‘이 사건 차용증’이라고 한다

>을 만들어 건넸음에도 불구하고, 2017. 1. 16.부터 2017. 3. 17.까지 그 약정이자 중 합계 270만원(= 60만원 30만원 30만원 60만원 90만원)만 갚았을 뿐이다.

B. On January 6, 2017, immediately after the issuance and delivery of the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff, Defendant C entered into a payment contract with respect to each of the instant real estate (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate in convenience”) discharged from the attached list with Defendant C, his wife, and each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) on the following grounds: (a) on January 9, 2017, Defendant C completed the respective registration of transfer of ownership in the future of Defendant C as to the instant real estate.

In determining whether the Defendant exceeded the Defendant B’s obligation at the time of entering into the instant contract, the instant real estate was excluded from the Defendant’s active property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da36478, 3648, 36485, May 27, 2005). Inasmuch as it is unclear whether the Defendants’ respective claims against the other creditors of the Defendant B against the Defendant B were actually existing at the time of the instant contract, it is still unclear whether or not there was any assets that could have been easily repaid, and therefore, it is evident that the Defendant B had already been in excess of the obligation solely with the principal and interest of each obligation against the Plaintiff and E association at the time of entering into the instant contract, and if so, the Defendant B bears a large amount of obligation against the Defendant C at the time.