A. (1) The Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into a credit guarantee agreement on October 12, 2012, setting the guaranteed principal of KRW 255,000,000, and the term of guarantee (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”) on October 11, 2013. On the same day, the Plaintiff issued a credit guarantee agreement for Defendant A’s lending of KRW 300,000 from a national bank.

(2) Under the instant guarantee agreement, Defendant A paid the amount guaranteed by the Plaintiff prior to the performance of the Plaintiff’s guaranteed obligation in cases where the cause for registration of the bad credit information occurs or the state of credit significantly deteriorates, and Defendant A paid the amount of subrogated payment, delay damages, penalty, and legal procedure. Defendant B guaranteed all the Defendant A’s obligations to the Plaintiff.

(3) On September 19, 2013, Defendant A lost the benefit of time due to a natural body, and the Plaintiff subrogated to the National Bank for KRW 258,095,210 pursuant to the instant guarantee agreement on October 30, 2013.

(4) The penalty for breach of contract by Defendant A is KRW 213,780, and the payment by subrogation made by the Plaintiff as the cost of the measure for preserving the claim is KRW 1,110,320, and the interest rate on delay under the instant guarantee agreement is 12% per annum.

B. On May 9, 2013, Defendant A transferred four construction machinery listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “transfer of this case”) to Defendant Daehan (hereinafter “instant transfer”), and Defendant Daehan registered ownership transfer as to construction machinery listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant A and B paid the Plaintiff the subrogated amount and damages for delay pursuant to the instant guarantee agreement and the joint and several guarantee agreement, and the instant transfer between Defendant A and Defendant Taeduk Logistics constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant Taeduk Logistics shall be revoked.