2. BB livestock farming association, DD, EE, Y group between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant BB livestock farming association, Y group;

on April 4, 2014, deposited by the Gwangju District Court No. 2221,00, Z market price of 95,821,000 won, and Z market price of 201

Of the 370,405,00 won deposited by the Gwangju District Court No. 5360 in August 18, 2014, 2014

265,909,400 won, and deposited by the XX-Gun as the Gwangju District Court No. 5517 on August 19, 2014

228,391,00 won each claim for the withdrawal of deposit is confirmed to be against the plaintiff (a counterclaim defendant).

3. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim againstCC, Inc., and the Defendant

The claims against the private country and the remaining counterclaim claims against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Co., Ltd. are dismissed, respectively.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit as a result of the principal lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant BB livestock farming association, DD, and EE are each borne by the Defendants. The part arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff),CC, and the Defendant Republic of Korea is borne by the Plaintiff. The costs of lawsuit arising from the counterclaim are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)CC.

Cheong-gu Office

Main claim: 95,821,000 won deposited by the YY group on April 4, 2014 by the Gwangju District Court No. 22221, 201;

Of 370,405,00 won deposited by the Gwangju District Court No. 5360 on August 18, 2014 at the Z market price, the amount of which is 370,405,000 won

265,909,400 won, and deposited by the XX-Gun as the Gwangju District Court No. 5517 on August 19, 2014

228,391,00 won each of the claims for payment of deposit money is limited to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff").

(c) identify that it is;

Counterclaim: Transfer by transfer between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB Livestock Farming Association on May 4, 2013

D. The Plaintiff’s cancellation is revoked. The Plaintiff’s delivery of the copy of the instant counter-claim from February 13, 2014 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) 124,345,000 won, as well as from February 13, 2014.

5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

D. The Plaintiff and Defendant BB livestock farming association amounting to KRW 70,000,000 on February 10, 2014;

Each contract on the donation of KRW 70,00,000 as of February 11, 2014 and KRW 1,887,000 as of March 7, 2014 shall be revoked. The Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant CCC 141,887,00 per annum from March 8, 2014 to the delivery date of the instant counterclaim and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff is a company engaged in meat processing, wholesale and retail business, food manufacturing business, etc., Defendant EE is a person who received compensation claims from Defendant BB livestock farming association (hereinafter “Defendant BB livestock”), from Defendant BB livestock farming association (hereinafter “Defendant BB livestock”), for which Defendant CCC (hereinafter “Defendant CCC”) received the above compensation claims, and Defendant CCC (hereinafter “Defendant CCC”) imposed a seizure and collection order on the above compensation claims, Defendant DD’s provisional seizure on claims, and Defendant BB livestock’s creditors who seized the claims against the destroyed compensation claims of XX military.

B. Conclusion of a contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB livestock for tension transfer and takeover, and for breeding ducks breeding contract

1) On May 4, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a closed pressure transfer and takeover contract with Defendant BB Livestock (hereinafter “the instant closed pressure transfer and takeover contract”) with the following attached Table 1, and obtained the certification on July 5, 2013 by Ordinance No. 945 (hereinafter “the instant certificate”).

1. Indication of the bonds to be acquired;

Human resources and equipment necessary for breeding farms and breeding tensions shall be permitted in the name of the BB livestock farming cooperative at the time of breeding and purchase, and human resources and equipment necessary for breeding farms shall be permitted to be used as existing goods.

2. Details of the transfer of claims in kind and notification of the transfer;

(1) The transferor shall transfer the amount of the above feed, the final pressure purchase cost, the management cost (monthly settlement cost), and the calculated amount of the non-calculated cost (not later than the retirement under the final pressure programme of 2013) to AAhas of the agricultural company.

(2) The spawning eggs arising from the transferred species pressure shall be preferentially sold by the Association of Livestock Farming Co., Ltd. after deducting the estimated inputs of the Association of Livestock Co., Ltd. from the inputs of the Association of Livestock Co., Ltd. within the facilities of the Association of Livestock Co., Ltd., and the surplus growth trend after deducting the feed cost, the purchase cost of species and the cost of farm management, and the incidental costs and other costs (office management and operating costs) shall be divided into certain percentages.

(3) Activities in the Republic of Korea and abroad and all other activities for the purpose of the first generation business shall be activities as the name of BB livestock farming association.

2) On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant BB livestock and an original farm located in the Zb (hereinafter “instant Z farm”). The main contents of the consignment livestock contract under the above contract and the additional agreement on the instant Z farm and Defendant BB livestock A farm located in XX group (hereinafter “instant Z farm”) are as listed in the following table 2 (hereinafter “instant consignment livestock contract and the instant additional agreement.” In this context, “B” refers to the Plaintiff, and “B” refers to the Defendant B livestock, respectively).

[Attachment 2]

Original Entrustment Breeding Contract

Article 1 (Purpose)

In order to ensure the stable income of original breeding farmers and to stably supply original meat at the market price and branded market price to consumers, the "B" shall be raised in such a way that "B" can be sold by using the mods and feed supplied from "A" and "B" shall be responsible for the fry and sale of the original fry raised in quantity by "B" and shall be responsible for the fry and sale of the original fry, and shall promote the commercial development with trust and trust.

Article 2.(Initial Production and Supply of Feed)

1. The term "A" shall supply "B" with electrical feed (c) and subsequent feed;

2. The term "B" shall cover only the feed supplied by "A" and supplied by "A";

3. The portrait shall be supplied to the place designated by the “B” under the responsibility of “A”; and

Article 9 (Retention of Ownership)

1. The term "A" shall belong to the ducks, feed, etc. supplied to the "B", to the remainder of the "B"'s "B", and to the extent that the contracting obligation is under way;

2. The term "B" shall not sell, transfer, create a right, or take any other voluntary disposition on any original or feed supplied by the "A" without the approval of the "B";

Additional Agreements (Special Agreements)

Until September 7, 2013, a farm 4,5, and 6 shall be used by the corporation of the AABFFFFFFFFF, and the expenses incurred in using the farm shall be adjusted to the amount of feed (such as originals and breeding originals) supplied by the corporation, and the B farm that is scheduled to be entered into the breeding originals on November 26, 2013 shall be also utilized as above and the same method of settlement shall also apply.

C. Impossibility of executing the seizure of corporeal movables by DefendantCC

1) On August 1, 2013, DefendantCC applied for the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables (No. 2013No. 8966) to the ducks located on the instant farm on the basis of evidence 2011No. 6777, DefendantCC’s notary public against Defendant BB livestock, for the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables (No. 2013No. 896) on the ground that the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables was not carried out. As for the non-execution of the seizure of corporeal movables, DefendantCC explained the debtor’s husband of the execution after entering into the execution site and explaining the debtor’s husband of the execution.

In addition, the obligee asserts that the ‘original' is being entrusted breeding and the ownership of this original is the assignee agricultural corporation AA hybrid, and at the same time the obligee's agent accepts this fact and at the same time gives up his intention of seizure execution, the obligee's agent is not able to execute seizure.

2) On the same day, DefendantCC applied for the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables (No. 2013No. 212) on the basis of the notarial deed No. 2011, No. 6777, a law firm partnership office for Defendant BB livestock, Defendant BB livestock, located in YY-gun, for the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables (No. 2013No. 2012) on the ground that the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables was not carried out, but on the ground that the non-execution of the seizure of corporeal movables was not carried out on the ground that “the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables was impossible upon the request of the creditor’s agent at the place of execution and at the request of the creditor’s agent at the site of bb, the corporate representative director at the

(d) Payment of compensation for slaughters and losses caused by AI outbreak;

1) On January 16, 2014, YY head of the YGun, on the ground that part of the Y farm of this case was affected by highly pathogenic avian influenza (hereinafter “AI”) with Defendant BB livestock on the ground that part of the Y farm of this case was affected by Defendant BB livestock.

Pursuant to Article 20, all 12,500 animals of six species raised in the above Y farm shall be slaughtered.

Order was issued.

2) On January 26, 2014 and February 19, 2014, the Z market issued to Defendant BB livestock with an order to destroy 10,000 of the ducks raised in the bb farm on the ground that some of the species of the b farm of this case were suspected of having been affected by the AI, and discarded 10,000 of the original species of the b farm and 200,000 of the original parts of the BB farm located in the b farm, respectively.

3) The head of XX head of the Gun on January 25, 2014 to Defendant BB livestock of this case, among the pets of this case XX Aa farm.

Some of them have been infected with AI 1,400 for all of the 11,400 for the pet of the above XX Aa farm

Each of the above slaughter orders was issued (hereinafter referred to as "each of the slaughter of this case").

4) Article 48(1)2 of the Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases provides that compensation shall be paid to “the owner of the livestock slaughtered by the State or a local government”. Pursuant to the foregoing provision, YY-gun, Z-Si, and XX-Gun shall appear to be paid to the Y-gun, Z-Si, and Z-Gun on the dynas, feed, s

The award(hereinafter referred to as "each of the compensation in this case") was determined to be paid.

(e) Combined deposits of the YGun, Z Si, and XX military;

1) Provisional attachment, seizure, and collection by the obligees of defendant BB livestock with respect to each of the compensation of this case

The notification of orders, etc. and the Plaintiff’s assignment of claims reached eachY-Gun, Z-Si, and XX-Gun, and the specific details are as listed below 3.

[Attachment 3]

Omission

2) In the case of Zb, 141,887,000 won out of the compensation relating to the slaughter of the Zb farm. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25090, Feb. 10, 2014>

Over the past, the above KRW 141,887,00 (i.e., KRW 70 million on February 10, 2014 and KRW 1,887,000 on March 7, 2014) were paid to A.

3) The XX group decided to pay KRW 124,345,00 for the first compensation related to the slaughter of January 25, 2014 to Defendant BB livestock. However, Defendant BB livestock entrusted the Plaintiff’s representative director aaa with the right to receive the said compensation on February 11, 2014, upon delegation of the Plaintiff’s right to receive the said compensation, it paid KRW 124,345,00 for the said compensation to said A on February 12, 2014.

4) On the ground of the foregoing concurrent assignment of claims, seizure, etc., the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and civil execution execution

(1) Pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Act, YA shall be subject to deposit for Defendant BB Livestock, Defendant Aaa, and

Gwangju on April 4, 2014, 200 won for compensation of 95,821,000 for slaughter of Y farm.

The District Court rendered a mixed deposit with the Bank No. 2221 in 2014, and the Bank shall be exempted in the case of the Bank.

High BB livestock and the Plaintiff mixed KRW 370,40,00, excluding KRW 141,887,000, excluding KRW 140,405,000, excluding those already paid to Defendant BB livestock on August 18, 2014. ③ From among the compensation for slaughter regarding Defendant BB livestock and the Plaintiff, Guns deposited KRW 228,391,000,000, excluding KRW 124,345,000, excluding those already paid by Defendant BB livestock pursuant to the instant comprehensive acquisition agreement, and deposited KRW 5517, 201 (hereinafter referred to as each of the instant mixed deposits) with the Gwangju District Court on August 19, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant deposits”).

[Reasons for Recognition]

Each entry (including the number number), the purport of the entire argument

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Determination as to the claims against Defendant BB livestock, DD, EE

1) The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant BB livestock and entered into a contract with Defendant BB livestock of this case, and on March 2013

7.5. The fact that the Plaintiff obtained certification as the Joint Office of Gwangju Notaries Public, etc. No. 945 on 2013, and the Plaintiff’s history

The fact that the YY-gun, Z-Si, XX-Gun entered into an original consignment breeding contract with respect to the Zb farm, the Y-gun, Y-gun, Zb farm, and Y-A farm, respectively, provided that each of the instant compensation is paid after killing the YY-Gun, Z-Si, Z-Si, and XX-Gun, on the ground that there is a dispute over the right holder with respect to the said compensation. As seen earlier, each of the instant compensation was deposited on the ground that each of the instant compensation was the subject of each slaughter and destruction of the instant Y farm, ZB farm, YB farm, YA farm’s YB farm, ZB farm, ZB-si, feed, and king, etc. that were assigned from Defendant BB livestock farms to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s new YD livestock products, the Plaintiff’s right to claim compensation with respect to each of the instant compensation, the closing of argument, and the Plaintiff’s each of the instant compensation against the Plaintiff.

2) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, each of the deposits of this case is combined with the deposit for repayment and the deposit for execution.

The deposit is a mixed deposit, and in terms of its execution deposit, the depositor is acting for the deposited person.

(1) the creditor of the execution as well as the creditor of the execution

Therefore, in light of the purpose of this, if one of the deposited persons claims the withdrawal of the deposited goods, other persons shall claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods.

only in relation to the deposited person, a document proving that the claim for the withdrawal of the deposited goods has been made to him.

In short, there is a lack of conjection, and in relation to the enforcement creditor, the right to claim the return of the deposited goods to him/her.

The plaintiff shall prepare and submit a document proving that he/she has committed a crime, and the plaintiff shall deposit each of the above cases.

for the withdrawal of money, other depositors, execution creditors, and the above Defendants, the assignee of the claim,

There is also a benefit to seek confirmation that the right to claim the return of each deposit is the plaintiff.

B. Determination as to the principal claim against DefendantCC and the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

1) The plaintiff's assertion

On May 4, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant BB livestock on the instant breeding agreement with the Defendant BB livestock on the instant breeding agreement on the species pressure and the quantity of new species pressure from the existing farms and new Y farm in the year 2013. On July 22, 2013, Defendant BB livestock entered into an agreement on the commission of original breeding with respect to species raised in the instant Zb farm, and on July 2, 2013, Defendant BB livestock entered into the instant consignment agreement with Defendant BB livestock to commission breeding of fat original farms for the pertinent period of time for the use of fat farms. However, from September 7, 2013 to September 7, 2013, the instant consignment breeding agreement with Defendant BB livestock to commission breeding of fat original farms for the pertinent period of time.

Expenses for use by the Plaintiff shall be settled as the amount of feed supplied in advance, and the expenses for use by the Plaintiff shall be calculated on November 2013.

26. Zb farm scheduled to enter the original Zb, also as described above, and settlement may also be made.

Inasmuch as the instant additional arrangement was concluded to the effect that “the same shall apply” was purchased and supplied in the name of the above Defendant with the pets allocated to Defendant BB livestock, the Y, XXa, and Zb farm of this case were owned by the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the pets, etc. subject to AI slaughter are owned by the Plaintiff.

Since each of the compensation of this case occurred by the above slaughter was deposited, each of the deposit of this case

The right to claim the withdrawal from the Republic of Korea is the plaintiff as the owner.

2) Determination

A) With respect to each of the instant slaughter, the Plaintiff filed a claim for confirmation of the right to claim the return of each of the instant compensation deposit under the premise that all of the Y farm, Zb farm, and Z Aa farm (hereinafter “each of the instant farms”) were owned by the Plaintiff, such as spath, spath, feed, and spath (hereinafter “spath, etc.”). Accordingly, the main issue of the instant case is the instant claim for confirmation of the right to claim the return of each of the instant compensation deposit.

B) The Zussium, the facts mentioned above, and each of the above evidence, Zus of this Court, XX Y, Y

Further to the results of each inquiry into the military and the whole purport of the pleading, the following:

In light of the circumstances, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 15, 18, 19, 27, and 28 can only be mixed-deposited with each of the following descriptions: Y farm, Zb farm, Zb farm, xaa

It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the ducks, etc. of the farm was owned by the plaintiff at the time of deposit, and otherwise,

Since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's assertion about the ownership of each of the compensation in this case is without merit.

(c)

① The instant agreement is not clearly specified solely on the subject of transfer “the amount of new voltage allotment in the year 2013, except for the number of 15,000 of the original Y farm with the existing Y farm, and 4,960 of the breeding 4,960 of the original Y farm with the exception of the number of Y farm 4,960.”

Inasmuch as the method of settlement is not specifically specified, it shall be deemed in light of the ordinary contractual practice.

Whether a contract has been specified to the extent that the contents of the juristic act at the time of the juristic act

Furthermore, in light of the following: (a) the above type pressure transfer agreement was concluded on May 4, 2013 immediately after DefendantCC notified DefendantCC of the progress of the legal procedure for asset protection on April 23, 2013; and (b) the above type pressure transfer agreement was made only on July 5, 2013, when two months have elapsed from May 4, 2013, which was the date the contract was written, until July 5, 2013, it is questionable whether the instant type pressure transfer agreement is true.

② The instant Zb farm and the instant Zb farm are all the duckss, while the instant consignment breeding agreement and the instant additional agreement are merely related to the original fats. As such, it cannot be deemed that the original fats in each of the instant farms were owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of the consignment breeding agreement and the instant additional agreement (the Plaintiff’s statement “from September 7, 2013, until the original fats of September 7, 2013,” which read “from the time of the arrival of the original fats” as an expression “from the time of the arrival of the original fats.”

The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff would use the Zbb farm and XXa farm from the time of the original entry into the Zb farm, but the above entry is a clerical error from the time of the entry into the Zb farm and the Za farm as alleged by the plaintiff.

there is no evidence to acknowledge that it is.

③ On May 4, 2013, pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiff: (a) 7,000 Y farm mouths, 27 weeks old as of November 6, 2012; and (b) 7,000 YA, YA; and (c)

on August 3, 2012, as of August 3, 2012, 8,00 water (YB, al.e., al., al.e., YB) received each of them;

On January 25, 2014, 119 weeks for 8,000 Y farms at the time of slaughter of the Y farm in this case

Colonel, 7,00 Y farm slaughtered Y farm of this case, 83 Y farm.

The instant species were taken over 9 weeks (5,732) and 76 weeks (8,556) respectively at the time of slaughter. As such, the instant species were different from the other species of originals described in the Y farm at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. Moreover, the Plaintiff taken over 4,950 of the instant species of Y A farm entry as of April 6, 2012, which were 52 weeks pursuant to the agreement, pursuant to the instant species of Y farm acquisition as of April 6, 2012. According to the details of slaughter of the instant LA farm, the Plaintiff appears to have taken over 4,278 items among the species of the fa farm slaughtered on January 25, 2014, as of 64 weeks, 6,560 items, 31 degrees, and 560 items, from the type of originals at the time of the instant agreement.

(4) Each description of evidence A (including branch numbers, if any) No. 3, 4, 18, 19, 28

According to the above Y farm and Pa farm, 2013, 2013, in addition to the mentioned Y farm and Y Aa farm.

The originals allocated to the defendant BB livestock that was a member of the Committee, to each farm above the defendant BB livestock.

Although it can be recognized that the plaintiff was paid, the plaintiff at the same time 180,000,000 won for the purchase price of the original paper.

It can be found that Nonparty OO paid KRW 180 million to Defendant BB livestock.

In addition, the plaintiff paid the same to the OO and the OO paid the same again to the defendant BB livestock.

After all, the plaintiff paid 180 million won as the original purchase price to Defendant BB livestock.

(b) each of the above amounts may not be found to have been in accordance with the above specification of transactions.

Until September 2013, 2013, the date of purchase of the originals newly assigned to Defendant BB livestock in the second half of the year 2013

According to the weather difference, Defendant BB livestock corporation at the same time.

The above OO shall have deposited KRW 174,227,222 (i.e., KRW 34,227,222 on January 22, 2014 + KRW 70,000,000 on February 10, 2014 + KRW 70,000 on February 11, 2014; or KRW 70,000,000 on KRW 4,00,000 on January 21, 2014; and KRW 20,00,00,000 on January 29, 2014; or KRW 34,227,222 on more than three occasions to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 34,227,222 on the said O; + KRW 70,000 on the said details of transactions) with the Plaintiff’s ownership of the aforementioned OO or the said amount allocated to the Defendant. In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the aforementioned OO supplied of the aforementioned O merely.

(5) A tax invoice (No. 4-1 through 3) submitted by the Plaintiff on the price of feed is submitted by the Plaintiff.

done from January 17, 2014 to February 21, 2012, immediately before the payment of each of the slaughter of this case

The truth is doubtful and is also limited to the period of preparation, and the details of sales taxes by trader (A. 19).

(Evidence) With respect to the above-mentioned historical materials purchased and provided by the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the instant historical materials

lack to specifically prove that each farm is identical. Other new farms

Certificate No. 4, 18, 19, 27 of A, unless there is evidence to prove that allocated pets are owned by the plaintiff

Each entry alone is not sufficient to recognize that each kind of column, feed, king, etc. destroyed is the ownership of the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

3. Determination on DefendantCC’s counterclaim claim

A. Determination on the part of XX Aa farm slaughtered KRW 124,345,00

1) The parties' assertion

A) DefendantCC’s assertion

Defendant BB Livestock was in insolvent at the time of entering into the instant religious pressure acquisition agreement with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was well aware that Defendant BB Livestock was insolvent.

On May 4, 2013, concluding the instant termination agreement and February 12, 2014 based on the said agreement.

This constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of creditors, such as DefendantCC, and thus revocation of the above tension acquisition agreement and seek the payment of the above money as restitution.

B) The plaintiff's assertion

DefendantCC, at least on July 2013, has sufficiently known the fact that due to the instant specific pressure acquisition agreement, there was a shortage in the joint security of Defendant BB livestock claims or the joint security that had already been insufficient to fully satisfy the claims due to the lack of one story, and thus, DefendantCC’s counterclaim claim is unlawful by adding the exclusion period to the exclusion period of one year after the date on which it became aware of the cause of revocation.

2) Determination

“The date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for the revocation in the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation” refers to the date when the obligee became aware of the requirement for the obligee’s right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee became aware that the obligee would prejudice the obligee, and that the obligee was aware of the fact that the obligee had committed

The mere fact that a person has conducted a disposal of property is insufficient, and the juristic act is not sufficient to do so.

(2) In other words, there is a lack of joint security of claims, or there is a lack of such

the claims are fully satisfied due to a lack of joint security in an unsatisfy condition;

In addition, it is required that the debtor be aware that he/she had the intention to harm the debtor.

The Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66490 Decided March 25, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66490 Decided January 12, 2012

2011Da82384, supra.

B) Written evidence Nos. 1, 5, 16, 17, and Ga, as seen earlier,

1. Each description of the evidence 1 to 5, 7, and 8 (including the number of branch offices) and all pleadings;

In addition to the following circumstances, i.e., the defendantCC around May 7, 2013:

A feed supply contract for BB livestock was discontinued, and at the time, Defendant BB livestock was unpaid.

The price has been paid in KRW 2,743,215,760, and ② DefendantCC is based on a promissory note notarial deed (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office 201,677, October 29, 2013) on Defendant BB livestock.

to the non-party BB livestock corporation, the non-party BB livestock corporation, for the purchase price claim

As to the seizure and collection order, the above TT Korea has received a decision on November 18, 2013.

C. DefendantCC deposited KRW 104,975,00,000 as the purchase price debt, and ③ DefendantCC deposited the said corporeal movables

After the impossibility of seizure and enforcement, the transfer of corporeal movables to the plaintiff and the defendant BB livestock farming association

The defendantCC received from the plaintiff on January 4, 2014 a certificate of fact that the contract of this case was already made on or around May 2013, 400

on March 3, 2014

on October 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) on the auction of real estate in Busan District Court (Jinju District Court Decision 2015Mo2540); (b) on October 8, 2013

BB Stock Ownership of real estate as creditor in the auction of real estate (Seoul District Court Decision 2013 Maz.7363)

(5) Of them, the auction of real estate (No. 7363) in Gwangju District Court 2013Tanam District Court 2013.

11. 5. The fact that the auction procedure has been commenced on September 1, 2014; and 6 Defendant BB livestock.

In light of the fact that: (a) although the Gwangju District Court filed an application for rehabilitation on the ground of financial failure on November 7, 2013, it was dismissed on February 10, 2014 (Seoul District Court 20113 Gohap34); (b) DefendantCC conducted an examination of the respective corporeal movables execution procedures, claims seizure and collection procedures; (c) the real estate auction procedures; and (d) Defendant BB livestock’s property status in each real estate auction procedure; and (e) it appears that Defendant BB livestock had already been expected to have been able to have been able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be 50 or 14).

B. Determination on the part of 141,887,00 won for the Zb farm slaughter

1) DefendantCC’s assertion

DefendantCC’s selective payment (hereinafter “the payment of KRW 141,887,00 in this case”) to the Plaintiff three times in total, including KRW 70,00,00 on February 10, 2014, KRW 70,000, and KRW 787,000 on February 7, 2014, and KRW 141,887,00,00 on March 7, 2014 without any legal basis, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of creditors, such as DefendantCC, and thus, the payment of KRW 141,887,00 in this case constitutes a fraudulent act, which constitutes a donation detrimental to the interests of creditors, such as DefendantCC, and thus seeks restitution of the said amount, or ② the payment of Defendant BB livestock.

Since an act is null and void by means of false conspiracy without legal grounds, the defendant

BB livestock shall seek restitution of unjust enrichment with respect to the above money by subrogation.

2) Determination

A) Determination as to the establishment of fraudulent act

(1) The existence of preserved claims

In full view of the evidence No. 16 and the purport of the whole pleadings, DefendantCC shall:

The feed supplied to Defendant BB livestock according to the contract from October 2010 to May 7, 2013.

In fact, on December 23, 2011, DefendantCC paid for the supply of the above feed to Defendant BB Livestock and the above feed.

On the other hand, the notary public prepared a notarial deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 2.6 billion at the face value as No. 2011,6777 in the same law office, and as Defendant BB livestock failed to pay feed normally, the Defendant notified Defendant BB livestock of the discontinuance of transaction to Defendant BB livestock on May 7, 2013, and the unpaid feed amount at the time remains in KRW 2,743,215,760. Thus, it can be recognized that Defendant CCC’s claim based on the notarial deed of the above promissory note was in existence in the Plaintiff.

In addition, it is apparent that before February 10, 2014, the payment of KRW 141,887,00 was made, and therefore, it is apparent that it was occurred before February 10, 2014.

(2) Determination as to the existence of a gift act as a fraudulent act

(A) If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, such act becomes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da57, May 12, 1998).

57320 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 57320). The debtor’s intent to commit suicide is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012

2012Da30861, supra.

However, in a case where a creditor who seeks revocation of a fraudulent act asserts that an act of payment of money to the beneficiary is a gift to the beneficiary, it shall be proved that the act of payment of money constitutes a gift. The burden of proof is on the part of claiming a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007). In this case, in order to objectively constitute a gift, the debtor and the beneficiary are required to prove that the act of payment of money constitutes a gift.

party to such transfer of funds to the beneficiary without compensation shall be subject to the transfer of such funds to the beneficiary.

It should be interpreted that there exists a mutual agreement between the deceased and the deceased.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the evidence No. 18 of this case and the entire arguments, Defendant BB Livestock paid 141,887,00 won to the Plaintiff in total on three occasions. However, the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the above remittance between Defendant BB Livestock and the Plaintiff constitutes a gift, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the donation. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. Accordingly, the above assertion on Defendant BB Livestock’s counterclaim claim seeking revocation and reinstatement on the premise that Defendant BB Livestock’s act of paying compensation KRW 141,887,00 is a gift, which is a fraudulent act, is without merit.

B) Determination as to the invalidity of false conspiracys

The act of payment to the plaintiff of the defendant BB livestock and the act of payment by the plaintiff of the defendant BB livestock is false and false and false.

The burden of proving that it is invalid is against DefendantCC, asserting that it:

In full view of the description of Gap evidence No. 18 and the purport of all the arguments, the defendant BB livestock

b. The fact that 141,887,00 won was paid to the Plaintiff in total three times.

Although the above facts are recognized, the payment of the above defendant BB livestock by the above facts alone.

A. It is not enough to recognize that there is a false conspiracy, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the act of paying 141,887,00 won compensation for Defendant BB livestock was in collusion with the parties.

On the premise that it is false declaration of intention, the above assertion on the counterclaim claim by DefendantCC seeking invalidation and restitution of the original state is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the defendantCC's counterclaim against the plaintiff Ya farm slaughter compensation

124,345,00 won is illegal and dismissed. Defendant BB Livestock, DD, and EE by the Plaintiff

The plaintiff's main claim against the defendantCC, the defendant's claim against the Republic of Korea, and the remainder of the counterclaim against the plaintiff by the defendantCC, are justified.

Therefore, each of them is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.