The Plaintiff had supplied oral parts for several years with the trade name of “E” to C engaged in the manufacturing business of the solar components with the trade name of “D,” and the outstanding amount of money supplied until March 9, 2017 reached KRW 63,801,120.

On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the purchase-price of goods with the District Court 2018Kadan9166 against C on May 8, 2018, and thereafter, in the foregoing case, C agreed that the Plaintiff pay KRW 50,00,000 to the Plaintiff by a decision in lieu of conciliation around May 27, 2019.

C On June 15, 2018, the Defendant entered into a mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount of KRW 173,00,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and on the same day, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was completed according to the No. 69828, regarding the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against Gap's 1 and 2 and the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against Gap's claim for the whole purport of pleading is a preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act.

The establishment C of a fraudulent act held a claim for the return of the real estate of this case and approximately KRW 30 million at the time of establishing the mortgage of this case, which is equivalent to KRW 150 million at the time of establishing the mortgage of this case. On the other hand, the Plaintiff bears a debt equivalent to KRW 63,801,120 against the Defendant, and a debt equivalent to KRW 144,252,450 against the Defendant.

[Based on the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 2, the inquiry of the fact about F of this court, and Eul concluded the mortgage contract of this case in accordance with the purport of the whole pleadings. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is presumed that Eul and the defendant's intention to commit suicide is presumed.

The defendant's assertion is not a fraudulent act, since the defendant entered into the mortgage contract of this case for the purpose of securing the attempted credit while maintaining continuous transaction relationship with C, it does not constitute a fraudulent act.