2. G:

1. In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen prior to the commission of a fraudulent act. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim, and there is high probability as to the establishment of a claim based on such legal relationship in the near future. In the near future, where a claim has been established due to its realization in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da27905, Nov. 28, 1995; 201Da76426, Feb. 23, 2012). Moreover, the high probability as to the establishment of a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should be objectively determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the content of the basic legal relationship between the obligee and the obligor, the obligor’s property status and the change in the obligor’s property status, frequency and degree of recognition of the claim arising therefrom (see, etc.

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.

A. On March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the instant credit guarantee agreement”) with a Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) to provide credit guarantee for the repayment obligation of loans that A would receive from a national bank (the term of guarantee was extended on March 21, 2012, but thereafter on March 21, 2013). The term of guarantee was extended to March 21, 2013), and the Co-Defendant B, C, D, and E, a co-defendant of the first instance trial, as the representative director and the co-defendant of the first instance trial, jointly and severally guaranteed the indemnity obligation that A would bear with respect to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant credit guarantee agreement.

A was loaned KRW 1 billion from the National Bank in accordance with the instant credit guarantee agreement.

B. The main text of Article 6(1) of the Credit Guarantee Agreement prepared at the time of the conclusion of the Credit Guarantee Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Credit Guarantee Agreement of this case") provides that "if any of the following events occurs with respect to the principal, the principal and the joint guarantor shall bear the obligation to repay in advance for the amount guaranteed by the Credit Guarantee Fund even if there is no notification or peremptory notice from the Credit Guarantee Fund," and subparagraph 1 provides that "If the principal and the joint guarantor violate the obligation to pay in advance for the amount guaranteed by the Credit Guarantee Fund," subparagraph 4 provides that "national shall bear the obligation to pay in advance for overdue, subrogated, and subrogated payment in accordance with the Credit Information Management Rules of the Criminal Association (including the above related information), information disturbing financial order, public record information," subparagraph 8 provides that "if the principal is a corporate entity, its representative (including a de facto manager), or if the personal manager (including the de facto manager) is deemed to have deteriorated due to the occurrence of the causes set forth in subparagraphs 3 through 7, and subparagraph 13 provides that "if it is objectively deemed necessary to preserve the credit status."

C. On May 5, 2012, 23. A: (a) public record information was registered to the effect that I, who is the former representative director and the actual manager of A, did not pay national taxes; and (b) the credit information inquiry protocol for I, entered the registered amount in arrears as “5,567,418 (unit: KRW 5,000).”

D. On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff was notified of the foregoing reasons, and on August 10, 2012, upon receipt of a provisional attachment order as to each real estate listed in the attached list of the lower judgment owned by C, which is the wife of I, and the record was completed. However, the Plaintiff reserved the accident disposal on September 11, 2012 instead of taking the "accident disposal due to the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident" procedure stipulated in the Credit Guarantee Accident Management Regulations, and the Plaintiff's "written notice of the cancellation of the non-performing reservation" was stated to the effect that the "written notice of the non-performing loan is the purchase fund," as the reason for reservation, its normalization is clear and favorable to the Fund through normal settlement at the arrival of the due date for each case.

E. On March 7, 2013, when a national bank did not pay the loan principal, it notified the Plaintiff of the reason for the actual occurrence of the credit guarantee department. On March 8, 2013, the Plaintiff revoked the reservation for dealing with an accident on March 8, 2013, and subrogated the deposit under the instant credit guarantee agreement to the Plaintiff on April 22, 2013.

F. On the other hand, on July 16, 2012, C completed the registration of the right to claim a transfer of ownership on the ground of the registration of the establishment of the maximum debt amount of KRW 195 million, which was based on the mortgage contract (hereinafter “mortgage contract in this case”) dated 9, 2012 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list of the lower judgment on July 16, 2012, and the registration of the right to claim a transfer of ownership on July 16, 2012 with respect to each real estate listed in Articles 4 and 5 of the same list to Defendant F on July 17, 2012 (hereinafter “instant promise”).

3. We examine the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

A. Article 6(1) of the Credit Guarantee Agreement provides that a primary debtor company and its joint and several sureties shall be liable for the prior reimbursement of the amount naturally guaranteed by the Credit Guarantee Fund even if there is no notification or peremptory notice from the Credit Guarantee Fund in a certain event. The purpose of the agreement is to expand the grounds for exercising the prior reimbursement right, and not to require any special procedural requirements to exercise the right. The purport of the agreement is to allow the Credit Guarantee Fund to secure the prior reimbursement right immediately for the sole reason in a case where there is a cause to deem that the primary debtor company has lost its economic credit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da38947, Feb. 23, 2001).

B. In light of the purport of Article 6(1) of the Credit Guarantee Agreement as well as the relationship between I and A, and the amount of arrears, if a joint and several debt guarantee of A as a principal debtor is delinquent in national tax exceeding 5.5 billion won, if the registration of public record information under Article 6(1)8 of the Credit Guarantee Agreement was made, and the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by C, a joint and several surety, was provisionally seized for this reason, it is sufficient to view that such circumstance is likely that the principal debtor’s credit will worsen due to the occurrence of the reason for registration of public record information about the actual manager of the principal corporation, as stipulated in Article 6(1)8 of the Credit Guarantee Agreement, or that it is highly probable that the Plaintiff’s prior registration of public record or provisional attachment was established at least a business district around the time of the above public record or provisional attachment, or that it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s prior repayment was not established in the future.

Furthermore, the delinquency in the payment of principal and interest of A, a principal debtor, constitutes grounds for the prior right to indemnity. In addition, the calculation of interest of the certificate of subrogation (proof No. 4) on the above loan, is written on January 19, 2013, and it can be deemed that interest was unpaid from that time. Moreover, as the national bank of the Co., Ltd., on March 7, 2013, issued a notice of the occurrence of non-performing credit guarantee, it is highly probable that the prior right to indemnity will have been established in the near future since the registration of the above public record was registered.

C. Furthermore, even after the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment of real estate C on September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff reserveded disposal of the accident on April 22, 2013, and revoked the accident disposal reservation upon receiving notice from the National Bank of Korea on April 22, 2013. However, the Plaintiff’s accident disposal reservation is based on the Plaintiff’s internal regulations that stipulate matters necessary for the management of the credit guarantee accident, such as the Plaintiff’s computer management for the company in which the credit guarantee accident occurred, and the purport of the reservation is temporary reservation of the accident disposal by March 21, 2013, which is the redemption date. Thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the above circumstance alone alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the prior right to indemnity that occurred or the possibility of

D. However, while C, the wife of 1, was registered as a public record information due to the Plaintiff’s delinquency in national tax payment, and the two months have not elapsed, C concluded the instant mortgage contract and the instant trade reservation with the Defendants at intervals of one week, based on the time of notice of the said registration with respect to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant mortgage contract and the instant promise were already established due to the registration of default of national taxes in arrears by the Plaintiff’s prior right to indemnity under the instant credit guarantee agreement and the relevant joint and several liability agreement, or they were established under the circumstances where it was highly probable that the instant credit guarantee agreement and the relevant joint and several liability agreement, which are the basis of its establishment, will be established in the near future, and thus, the Plaintiff’s prior and subsequent claim for indemnity against C can be the preserved claim.

4. Nevertheless, under the erroneous premise that the amount of national tax delinquent at the time of the instant contract and the instant promise to sell and purchase was more than 5 million won, the lower court is difficult to recognize a high degree of probability as to the Plaintiff’s establishment of the Plaintiff’s right to prior reimbursement of damages or the Plaintiff’s right to prior reimbursement of damages, such as the Plaintiff’s reservation of accident after being notified of the grounds for registration of the relevant public records and the provisional attachment of real estate owned C, on the ground that it does not interfere with recognizing a high probability of the Plaintiff’s future occurrence. In so doing, it is difficult to recognize a high degree of probability as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s right to prior reimbursement was not yet established at the time of entering into the instant contract and the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate, and that prior or ex

Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding preserved claims of obligee's right of revocation and the criteria for determining high probability that such claims should be established, or in violation of logical and empirical rules and in excess of the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Kim Gin-young