2. As to the claim for refund of deposit for lease on September 23, 2013 by the Defendant and C.

A. On December 25, 2012, the Plaintiff owned a loan claim of KRW 20 million against C in accordance with the monetary loan certificate as of December 25, 2012, and D, the father of C, jointly and severally guaranteed the said debt.

B. On September 27, 2012, C entered into a lease agreement with E to lease real estate in the attached Form KRW 30 million from E.

C. D filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability as the Gwangju District Court Decision 2013Hadan1911 and 2013Ma11 on August 6, 2013, since May 2013, as it became impossible for the debtor to repay his/her obligations. D was determined exemption from liability on July 22, 2015.

C On September 23, 2013, upon the repayment of debt to D, the parent of C, and the Defendant, the creditor of the loan to F, (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of debt”). On September 2014, the Defendant received the refund of KRW 25,200,000 from the lessor E, deducting the unpaid rent from the lessor E.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, according to the Plaintiff’s claim against C may be subject to the obligee’s right of revocation: (a) and according to the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 6, it is reasonable to deem that D is the actual obligor against the Plaintiff; (b) the substantial lessee of the attached real estate is D; and (c) the obligor against the Defendant and the obligor against the Defendant and the transferor of the right to return the lease deposit to the Defendant are also D; (d) therefore, it constitutes a fraudulent act to transfer the right to return the lease deposit, which is the only property lease deposit, to the Defendant from May 2013 to September 23, 2013, when the obligation is in excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act in which the obligor’s joint security is insufficient.

B. The Defendant’s bona fide assertion as to the Defendant’s bona fide assertion is the Defendant’s claim to refund the lease deposit at the time of the instant contract for the transfer and takeover of claims.