The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The right to revoke a fraudulent act is to preserve the debtor's responsible property by revoking a fraudulent act between the debtor and the beneficiary;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105734 Decided April 29, 2010). In a case where a security deposit paid by a debtor to a party in a contractual relationship has the function to secure obligations to the other party arising from the contractual relationship in question, and where a debtor has determined by deducting the amount of obligations to the other party from the original amount of the claim to be returned in the future from the specific amount of the claim to be returned, the part equivalent to the above amount of the claim to be returned cannot be deemed as the liability property provided to the general creditor as joint collateral. Thus, if the amount reasonably predicted to be deducted exceeds the initial amount, the act of disposal of the returned claim by the debtor cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act.

In a case where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation should be determined based on whether the act ultimately constitutes an act detrimental to general creditors, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the weight of the debtor’s entire property in liability; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the economic purpose of the act; (d) the legitimacy of the act’s economic purpose and its realization means; (e) the reasonableness of the act in question; (e) the reasonableness of the act’s duty or situation; and (e) the degree of the party’s awareness

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718 Decided September 30, 2010). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

(1) According to the lease agreement of this case, the instant case is intended.