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

From February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff, a petroleum product dealer, supplied petroleum, etc. to Nonparty D, who operates the E gas station, and applied for a payment order against D with a claim for the price of goods, and on December 13, 2018, the payment order was issued on December 13, 2018, stating that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 113,828,042 and delay damages,” and the said payment order was finalized around that time.

Meanwhile, the Defendant supplied petroleum to D, and the Defendant had the outstanding claim amounting to KRW 82,363,434 as of October 2018.

D on November 19, 2018, the Defendant transferred the claim for refund of KRW 70 million to the Defendant of the lease deposit of KRW 70 million with respect to the above E-ownership station. On January 2019, the Defendant received KRW 36810,000 by exercising the claim for refund of the lease deposit acquired.

[Ground] : The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the transfer of the right to return the lease deposit to the defendant by D should be revoked as a fraudulent act, in the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

Even in cases where a debtor, in excess of his/her obligation, results in a decrease in the joint security of other creditors by repaying his/her obligation to a specific creditor in accordance with the principal place of the obligation, such repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act in principle unless the debtor, in collusion with some of his/her creditors, makes repayment with the intent to prejudice other creditors, and, in principle, transfers other monetary claims in lieu of the repayment of the existing pecuniary obligation.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendants, including the Defendants, who are part of the creditors at the time of transferring the assignment of the instant case, are deemed to have in collusion with the Defendant at the time of the transfer of the instant claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60822, May 28, 2004)

As the plaintiff's assertion, it can be seen that the defendant was in collusion with D merely because the defendant was aware of the fact that D's debts.