A. On April 17, 2017, pursuant to a credit guarantee agreement with the Data Co., Ltd. Data Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Data Co., Ltd”), the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,33,33,537 to the Bank of Korea on April 17, 2017, and KRW 452,457,863 to the new bank of the Data Co., Ltd. on April 18, 2017, and KRW 946,023,901 to the new bank of the Data Co., Ltd. on the same day.

On January 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an order for payment (Seoul Southern District Court 2018 tea102085) with the data coding system company to pay the amount of reimbursement for subrogation (the Seoul Southern District Court 2018Guj102085) to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2018. The data coding system company received an order for payment to the effect that “2,732,698,545 won (the amount of subrogated reimbursement of KRW 2,729,136,648 (the amount of subrogated reimbursement of KRW 8,997, the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 3,552,90) and damages for delay.” The payment order was finalized on February 6, 2018.

B. On February 8, 2017, the dispositive data coding system business entered into a contract on the transfer of each of the patent rights and trademark rights listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”), and the Defendant completed the transfer registration under his/her own name on February 8, 2017 with respect to each of the patent rights listed in the separate sheet and each of the trademark rights listed in the separate sheet on the same day

C. At the time of the instant transfer contract, the data co-system’s property status was the only property on which each right listed in the separate sheet was the property of the data co-system’s property at the time of the instant transfer contract, and the data co-system’s property exceeded the obligation exceeding the positive property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation of a preserved claim should, in principle, have occurred before the obligor performs a juristic act aimed at property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, but such juristic act.