Attorney Noh Jeong-seok et al., Counsel for defendant

Attorney Jeong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

With respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (Omission), the defendant and thisC1 cancel the trade reservation entered into on August 28, 2007, and the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed under No. 21310 on August 28, 2007 between the defendant and thisC1, to the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a special corporation established in accordance with the Act for the purpose of guaranteeing the obligation of small and medium enterprises, and this C2 is a person who operates the business in the name of "original title". On September 17, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with thisC2 on September 17, 2009 with the guaranteed principal of KRW 42,50,000, and the guaranteed term of September 17, 2004, and this D1 guaranteed the obligation of thisC2 under the said credit guarantee agreement on the same day. The said credit guarantee agreement was extended several occasions thereafter by September 14, 2007.

나. 이C2는 위 신용보증약정에 기하여 2003.9.18. 주식회사 ◆은행으로부터 50,000,000원을 대출받았는데 2007. 9. 14. 원금연체로 인한 신용보증사고를 야기하였고, 원고는 주식회사 ◆은행의 보증채무 이행청구에 따라 2007.12.24. 이C2가 상환하지 못한 대출원금 42,023,809원과 이에 대한 이자 1,190,613원 합계 43,214,422원을 대위변제하였다. 이후 원고는 이C2로부터 12,373,360원을 지급받아 위 대위변제 원금에 충당하고 법적 절차비용 869,620원 중 645,180원을 회수하여, 원고의 이C2에 대한 채권은 대위변제 원금 30,841,062원, 확정지연손해금 261,472원, 잔존 법적절차비용 224,440원 합계 31,326,874원과 그 중 위 30,841,062원에 대한 지연손해금의 범위 내에서 남아있다.

C. On August 28, 2007, immediately before the occurrence of the above credit guarantee accident under Section 2, E.D1 entered into a pre-contract with the Defendant for sale and purchase of the real estate (hereinafter referred to as "Geongdong apartment"), which is its own ownership (hereinafter referred to as "the pre-contract for sale") and completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on the same day.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. Formation of preserved claims

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen before the act was conducted as a matter of principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act the legal relationship which is the basis of the establishment of the claim has already occurred, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In the near future, it is highly probable that the claim should be established in the near future. In the case of this case, the claim is also preserved by the obligee's right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). In light of the fact that the credit guarantee contract relationship had already been established at the time of the promise to sell and purchase of this case, and as seen below, it was highly probable that the Plaintiff's claim for indemnity against Da1 was established in the near future, and it is probable that the Plaintiff was subrogated by payment after the occurrence of a guarantee accident after the above promise date.

(b) Necessity of preservation (the insolvency of Do1); and

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each of the evidence Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number), the court of first instance and the head of Si/Gun/Gu of this court, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu of this court, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu of this court, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu of Si/Gun/Gu of this court, the social loan corporation, Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Korea Mutual Savings Bank, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu of this

A) This D1 owns 310,000,000 won at the market price of the rice-dong apartment with active property from the time of the instant purchase and sale promise to the date of closing argument in the trial of the political party, and 310,00,000,000 won at the market price of ○○ apartment X-dong, Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter referred to as “China apartment”).

B) The Plaintiff’s obligation at the time of the promise to sell and purchase the instant case, even without considering the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 31,326,974, as to ① the obligation of KRW 20,00,000 to the Defendant’s indemnity, ② the obligation of KRW 120,000 to return the security deposit obligation to the Defendant’s apartment housing, ③ the claim amount of KRW 24,00,000 to the Credit Guarantee Fund’s provisional attachment claim against the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, ④ the collateral security obligation of KRW 75,00,00, ⑤ the collateral security obligation of KRW 40,363,520 to the Defendant’s indemnity against the Defendant’s life insurance, ⑤ the obligation of KRW 117,00,000 to the Defendant’s mutual savings bank, ③ the obligation of KRW 360,000 to the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 360,00,000 to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and KRW 363616,7,06367,067.

C) The obligation owed by Do1 as of the date of the closing of argument in the trial is ① the Plaintiff’s reimbursement obligation of KRW 31,326,974 and delay damages of KRW 12,703,136 [30,841,062 x X 14% per day x 91/365 x 30,841,062 x 290 days/365 x 16%] + (30,841,062 x 4562 x 460% x 360% x 4566% x 360% x 360% x 865 x 360%) + the amount claimed for a provisional seizure against the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund; ② the amount claimed as KRW 48,700, 300, 400, 700, 70, 360, 360, 360, 700, 7, 700, 5, 5, 7, 70.

2) According to the above facts, it is recognized that the debtor D1 was in excess of his/her obligation from the date of the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant case to the date of the closing of argument in the trial. Therefore, there is a need to preserve the plaintiff's claim for indemnity

(c) Fraudulent act and intent to commit suicide;

According to the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that D1’s act of entering into the instant trade reservation with respect to the apartment complex with the Defendant in excess of the debt and completing the registration of the provisional right to claim ownership transfer to the Defendant on that basis constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances, as an act reducing the creditors’ joint security such as the Plaintiff, etc., and it is reasonable to view that as the debtor, D1, the above act was sufficiently aware that it would prejudice the creditors, and that the Defendant, the beneficiary, was aware of such circumstances as at the time of the instant

3. Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

A. As to this, the defendant lent 20,000,000 won to Do1 through HuC4, a corporate bond broker, to Do1 and entered into the instant contract for sale and purchase as a bona fide defense. However, when a corporate bond broker is requested from a person who wants to obtain a loan, if the security is certain at the time of request for the loan of money, he shall receive documents related to the security, and if the person who wants to obtain the loan requests to pay the money in advance, he shall make a loan with the proper security out of the security that he has secured in advance. In this case, he shall be known as the other party, regardless of who is who is the other party, and shall trust the bond broker and make the bond broker enter into the loan transaction contract and the security right contract on behalf of the other party, so the corporate bond broker shall act as the agent of the borrower in concluding the loan for consumption and the security right, and shall be referred to as the judgment of the subsequent purchaser or his agent in bad faith as to whether the borrower acted as his agent (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1668797,7,797.297.

B. In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s fraudulent act of 1 to 5 (including each number of the above evidence); (b) the testimony of each witness of the first instance court and the first instance court; and (c) the head of Busan Bank BPR support division of the first instance court; and (d) the fact-finding results of each fact-finding on the 3rd mountainous district branch office, Da4 had operated its business as a bond broker for several years, not later than this Da1; (b) the market price of Da1-owned apartment was 175,00,000,000 won was 120,000 won or more; and (c) the Defendant’s act of 00,000 won was 40,000 won more than 0,000 won was 10,000 won more than 5,000 won more than 0,000 won more than 00,000 won more than 10,000 won more than 00.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

As such, the conclusion is unfair and revoked.

Judges fixed-ranking

Judge Lee Young-young