A. On August 2014, the bankruptcy debtor A (hereinafter “A”) filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Chuncheon District Court 2014Hadan921, which was declared bankrupt on November 14, 2014, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee of A.

B. A, around October 4, 2013, from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”), who was known to the general public, borrowed money from around 2007 to KRW 200 million, and the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage of this case”) on the ground of the contract on October 4, 2013 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 260,000,000 and KRW 260,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 3/22 in order to secure this on October 7, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A from 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. Whether the instant mortgage contract constitutes a subject of intentional avoidance or not is subject to the relevant legal doctrine and the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

The "act that the debtor knows that it would cause damage to the bankruptcy creditor", which is an act that is an object of avoidance set forth in subparagraph 1 of Article 391, includes not only so-called fraudulent act of absolutely reducing the debtor's general property, which is a joint security of all creditors, but also so-called biased act that affects the debtor's property relations, such as repayment to a specific creditor or provision of security to a specific creditor, which is favorable to the debtor's dividends and goes against the fairness with other bankruptcy creditors. However, in order to be recognized as an intentional person, the debtor should have known that it would cause damage to the bankruptcy creditor as a subjective element