2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. Defendant AAAA corporation expresses its intention to transfer the right to claim payment of deposit money in the U.S. District Court 2017 gold ***** the deposit money deposited in the U.S. court 293,334,000, and gives notice to the Republic of Korea (public officials of the U.S. District Court).

3. Defendant KimB expressed toCC Co., Ltd. the wish to transfer the right to claim for payment of deposit money of KRW 120,000,000 deposited in the Ulsan District Court*****, and notify the Republic of Korea (public officials of Ulsan District Court) of the above assignment of claim.

(a) Claim against Defendant AAA corporationCC

1) On July 10, 2008,CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) concluded a construction contract with Defendant AAA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant AAA”) on a set of construction cost as KRW 900,00,00,00 (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the construction of a factory in Ulsan-gun DES EE Eup *-*--* et al., two parcels (number FF Ri******-* et al., after division) located outside 9 parcels (hereinafter referred to as “the construction of the factory in this case”).

2) Although Defendant AA had undertaken the instant plant construction work in accordance with the said contract, due to the nonperformance byCC, Defendant AA did not receive KRW 297,100,000 of the construction cost fromCC. The instant plant construction work was suspended around February 18, 2009.

3) Accordingly, on April 26, 2013, Defendant AAA filed a lawsuit againstCC as the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of 2013Kahap130,00, and on April 26, 2013, Defendant AAA rendered a judgment that “CC shall pay to Defendant AA 297,100,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 9, 2013 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff’s national tax claimCC did not pay value-added tax and corporate tax for the period of February 2, 2008, and the base amount of national tax on June 23, 2017 reaches KRW 755,66,960.

C. Claim against Defendant KimBCC

1) Around January 8, 2010, Defendant KimB and ASEAN, their ASEAN, were awarded a bid for each of the above forests and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of 1/2 shares in the auction procedure for real estate auction conducted with the Ulsan District Court Decision 203-22, 229m2 (hereinafter “each of the instant forests”) around 2009, Ulsan District Court Decision 2009Da12063, supra.

2) Meanwhile, as the construction of the instant plant was suspended, some of the buildings, etc. in the state of complete construction (hereinafter “the instant obstacles”) remains on the instant land. However, on each of the instant forests and fields, there was a steel structure (hereinafter “the instant steel structure”) which is part of the instant ground objects on each of the instant forests and fields.

3) Accordingly, around October 2014, Defendant KimB and KimG filed a lawsuit againstCC, as the Ulsan District Court 2014Gadan2885, seeking the removal of the instant steel structure, delivery of the site, and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent.

4) On May 4, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment as follows regarding the removal of the steel structure of this case, delivery of the site, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 6, 2017.

(1) Of the 2,329 square meters of land in Ulsan DDDDDK KKK 203-11, 2,329 square meters, the attached appraisal map No. 7,6,5,8, and 7 shall be paid in the proportion of 1,193 square meters and the attached appraisal map No. 5,10,11,8, and 5 square meters of land in order to connect each point of the 203-23 forest land and 2,382 square meters of land, such as the attached table No. 1,193-23 forest and 2,382 square meters in order to remove the attached appraisal map No. 5,10,10,11,8, and 79 square meters of land, the part of the 'B', 'C', and 'C' shall be delivered, 2.2. each of the 26,571,500 square meters and the amount shall be paid in 15% per annum from December 4, 2015.

" from December 4, 2015 to the above "b".

(c) pay the amount calculated at the rate of 408,360 won per month by the date of loss of the Plaintiffs’ ownership or the Defendant’s delivery of the land; and (e) the developments leading up to the occurrence of the claim against HHH by theCC.

1) JJJJ Co., Ltd and 23 other companies conducted a development project of HH general industrial complex (hereinafter “instant industrial complex”) at one of the 77 U.S. Fririri-si, Seoyang-si, Ulsan District. On March 20, 2014, the JJ obtained approval for the said project as the executor of the project, and conducted compensation procedures for the land, obstacles, etc. in the instant industrial complex.

2) At that time, JJJ Co., Ltd. agreed on compensation for the obstacles in the instant case located inCC and the instant industrial complex and set forth KRW 413,334,00 as compensation forCC (hereinafter “instant claims”).

3) Meanwhile, HHHHH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HHHH”) was approved on February 12, 2015 by changing the project implementer of the instant business complex to HHHH, as the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City Notice No. 2015-**

H. The background leading to the deposit of the instant subject claim by HHHH

1) On September 15, 2014, Defendant AA was determined to attach and collect the instant claim under the U.S. District Court Decision 2014U.S.C. 2014U.T. 100, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment demanding construction cost claim claim under the Daegu District Court Branch of Daegu District Court 2013Kahap130, the amount of KRW 384,683,452 (the sum of the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 9, 2013 to August 28, 2014).

2) On December 23, 2014,CC transferred all of the instant claims to Defendant AAA (hereinafter referred to as “transfer of claims”) on December 23, 2014, and notified the JJ on December 26, 2014.

3) On June 15, 2017, Defendant AA transferred KRW 120,000,000 out of the instant claims to Defendant KimB, and on the same day, Defendant AA notified the assignment of claims to HHH.

4) On June 23, 2017, the head of Ulsan District Tax Office notified HH of the seizure of the instant subject claim to HHH. On the same day, the said attachment notice reached HHH.

5) HHH deposited several transfers, collection orders, etc. with respect to the instant claim as follows: (a) on September 26, 2017, the Ulsan District Court deposited KRW 413,334,000 as Ulsan District Court Order 2017No. 4361, Sept. 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant claim for payment of deposit”).

No.

Transferee/creditor of Bonds

Case Number and Details

/ Date of Notification/Service

Amount claimed (won)

1

Attachment and Collection Order of Claim

Ulsan District Court 2014 Other 10703)

September 18, 2014

384,683,452

2

Transfer of Claims (transferor: 1.CC, 2. LL, 3. KimM)

December 26, 2014

All Compensations

3

Transfer of Claims (transferor: 1.CC, 2. Defendant AAAA)

June 15, 2017

The above compensation

4

Korea

Attachment of Claims

June 23, 2017

755,666,960

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant assignment contract constitutes a fraudulent act against general creditors ofCC by transferring the instant claim, which is the property practically only owned byCC, to Defendant AAA, and the Defendants are presumed to have acted in bad faith as a beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser under the instant assignment contract. Therefore, the instant assignment contract concluded betweenCC and Defendant AAAA should be revoked by fraudulent act. The Defendants are obliged to restore the original state to the original state and notify the Republic of Korea of each of the above assignment claims.

B. The defendants' assertion

1) Defendant AA’s input of its own cost and effort to construct the factory of this case. As such, the original acquisitor of the obstacles of this case is Defendant AA. Accordingly, compensation for the obstacles of this case ought to be originally reverted to Defendant AA. In addition, if Defendant KimB did not endeavor to maintain and preserve the obstacles of this case, the claims of this case were extinguished. In other words, the claims of this case do not constitute the property liable toCC.

2) Defendant AAA’s transfer of the instant claim fromCC to satisfy its claim by exercising its right as a creditor againstCC as natural, does not constitute a fraudulent act.

3) Even if the assignment of claim of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, the Defendants did not know that the assignment of claim of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, acted in good faith.

3. Determination

A. Whether the subject claim in this case constitutes the responsible property ofCC

1) According to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that there is no content that the right of the completed factory building belongs toCC, a contractor, under the construction contract for the instant factory construction work.

2) However, on the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances and facts revealed in light of the aforementioned evidence, Eul evidence No. 3-1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant compensation does not constitute the responsible property ofCC. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the instant claim does not constitute the responsible property ofCC cannot be accepted.

A) At the time of the discontinuance of the instant factory construction construction work,CC issued to Defendant AA a letter stating that it will sell the instant obstacles and pay construction cost.

B) Under the premise that the subject claim of this case belongs to the CC’s responsible property, Defendant AAA seized and collected the subject claim of this case, and thereafter, Defendant AAA under Paragraph 2 of the transfer contract of this case prepared between Defendant AA andCC, the entire amount of the compensation of this case is confirmed as “CC’s claims held by JJJ Co., Ltd.”.

C) Defendant KimB also concluded a contract to acquire KRW 120,000,000 out of the instant subject claim, on the premise that the instant subject claim belongs to the liability property ofCC and Defendant AAAA.

D) Other Defendants do not seem to have asserted that the subject claim of this case should be attributed to Defendant AA after the occurrence of the subject claim of this case and before the submission of a preparatory document dated January 23, 2019.

B. Whether the assignment of claim of this case constitutes a fraudulent act

1) The property status ofCC at the time of the transfer of the instant claim

However, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view thatCC exceeded its obligation since it had a national tax obligation against the Plaintiff, the construction cost and damages for delay against Defendant AAAA, while it was a small property.

2) The intention to commit fraudulent act and to injure himself;

A) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a debtor's act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances revealed in the act, such as the weight of the debtor's entire responsible property in the whole responsible property, the degree of insolvency, the justification of the economic purpose of the juristic act and its realization means, the reasonableness of the act in question, the reasonableness of the duty or situation of the act, and the degree of awareness of the parties as to the risk of lack of common security, such as the existence of a collusion between the debtor and the beneficiary, and ultimately, whether the act can be considered as an act detrimental to general creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718, Sept. 30, 20

B) Determination

(1) As seen earlier, the entire claim in this case, which is the only active property ofCC, is transferred to Defendant AA with excess of its liabilities, may be deemed as a fraudulent act in response.

(2) However, in light of the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of the evidence as mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3-4, Eul evidence Nos. 4-3, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-3, and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the defendants received each claim of this case in an amount equivalent to the amount of money in the course of actively exercising their rights to remedy and secure claims for several years with real creditors ofCC. In addition, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem thatCC transferred the claim of this case to defendant AA with the intent to harm other creditors, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(A) On September 15, 2014, Defendant AA had received the order of seizure and collection of the instant claim under the executory judgment on the claim for construction cost claim No. 2013Gahap130 from the Daegu District Court on September 15, 2014. Thereafter, Defendant AAA, which became aware of the said fact, acquired the instant claim fromCC on the condition that it did not file a complaint against the Defendant AA, for evasion of compulsory execution, on the condition that the instant claim should be transferred with the U.S. court on the condition that the instant claim should be returned if the claim of Defendant AAA is less than the amount of the instant claim.

(B) At the time of the instant assignment contract, Defendant AA had the claim againstCC totaling KRW 403,730,410 based on the final and conclusive judgment (principal principal + KRW 297,100,000 + KRW 106,630,410 calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 9, 2013 to December 23, 2014). The amount of the said claim is equivalent to KRW 413,34,00, the amount of the instant claim.

(C) Meanwhile, Defendant KimB won at the lawsuit for removal of the instant steel structure, transfer of land, and return of unjust enrichment againstCC, and was granted by the Ulsan District Court on June 2, 2017, upon the above final judgment, a compulsory execution for removal of the instant steel structure. Accordingly,CC and Defendant AAAB proposed that the instant steel structure would be at risk of removal of the instant steel structure, and that, in order to preserve the instant subject claim, Defendant KimB reserved the execution for removal of the instant steel structure instead of transferring KRW 120,000,000 out of the instant subject claim to Defendant KimB, and Defendant KimB accepted the said proposal and got Defendant KimB acquired KRW 120,000 from Defendant AAA to acquire the instant subject claim amounting to KRW 120,000.

(D) At the time Defendant AA transferred KRW 120,00,000 of the instant subject claim to Defendant KimB, Defendant KimB had a total of KRW 80,378,978 based on the final and conclusive judgment againstCC [The amount equivalent to the rent that occurred + (the amount of unjust enrichment corresponding to the rent that occurred + the amount of KRW 53,143,00 + the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 4, 2015 to June 15, 2017 + (12,208,330 won per annum) + (the amount equivalent to KRW 816,720 from December 4, 2015 to June 15, 2017:15; 027,648 won). The forest of this case had not been awarded for each of the instant objects for 2010 years since each of the instant forest of this case.

(E) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, on June 20, 201, seized the claim insurance money against the NF damage insurance ofCC on June 23, 201 and did not take any measures to collect the delinquent tax againstCC prior to the seizure of the instant claim on June 23, 2017. In addition, the time when the instant assignment of claim was made is the time when the Plaintiff did not take any measures to collect the delinquent tax, such as demanding payment toCC for about three years and six months, and the Plaintiff’s seizure of the instant claim on June 23, 2017, when the instant transfer of claim was made. In light of the above, it is difficult to deem thatCC was aware of the Plaintiff’s claim at the time of the instant transfer of claim, or that Defendant AAAAA had failed to pay the national tax ofCC.

(3) Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants, premised on the premise that the assignment of claims in this case is a fraudulent act, cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.