2. As to real estate listed in the annex 1 list:

A. The contract to establish a mortgage concluded on April 2, 2008 between Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 (Supreme Court and Defendant 3 of the appellate court judgment) and the contract to establish a mortgage concluded on April 2, 2008 between Defendant 3 and Defendant 6 (Supreme Court and Defendant 4 of the appellate court judgment) respectively is revoked.

B. Defendant 5 performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed by the Seoul Southern District Court No. 16846, April 3, 2008 to Defendant 3.

C. Defendant 6 performed the registration procedure for the Seoul Southern District Court to Defendant 3 and the cancellation registration procedure for the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the area that was completed by No. 60778 on November 17, 2008.

3. As to real estate listed in the annex 2 list:

A. The gift agreement concluded on August 8, 2008 between Defendant 4 and Defendant 7 (Supreme Court and Defendant 5 of the appellate court judgment) shall be revoked.

B. Defendant 7 shall implement the procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by Law No. 113309 on August 8, 2008, with respect to Defendant 4’s District Court registration and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant TNC Co., Ltd. and the defendant 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed, respectively.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant CFC Co., Ltd., Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and 4 shall be borne by the Plaintiff; the remainder by Defendant CFC Co., Ltd., Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and 4; and the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7 shall be borne by the Plaintiff 5,6, and Defendant 7.

6. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Conclusion of an export credit guarantee agreement and joint and several guarantee agreement;

1) On March 26, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an export credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “the first credit guarantee agreement”) with Defendant CKC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) with a credit guarantee limit of KRW 350 million, the term of guarantee from March 26, 2007 to March 26, 2008, setting the export credit guarantee agreement as a revolving guarantee (hereinafter “the first credit guarantee agreement”), and Defendant 2 and 3 jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant Company due to the said credit guarantee agreement.

2) Under the first credit guarantee agreement, on September 12, 2007, the Plaintiff issued to the Korea Exchange Bank a credit guarantee limit of 350 million won, and from March 26, 2007 to March 26, 2008, an export credit guarantee certificate (credit certificate No. 1 omitted) (hereinafter “credit guarantee certificate”) with the term of guarantee from March 26, 2007 to March 26, 2008. The Defendant Company submitted a credit guarantee certificate on September 12, 2007 and received a loan of 750 million won from the Korea Exchange Bank on March 26, 2008.

3) The maturity of the loan period and the export credit guarantee period is multilateral, the defendant company and the plaintiff requested a foreign exchange bank and the plaintiff to extend the period. On March 24, 2008, the plaintiff entered into an export credit guarantee agreement between the defendant company and the defendant company with the limit of 315 million won and the guarantee period from March 27, 2008 to March 27, 2009 (hereinafter "second credit guarantee agreement"), and the defendant 2 and 4 jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant company's obligation to the plaintiff by the above credit guarantee agreement.

4) In accordance with the second credit guarantee agreement, on March 24, 2008, the Plaintiff issued to the Korea Exchange Bank an export credit guarantee certificate (written guarantee number 2 omitted) stating that the limit on credit guarantee is 315 million won, the term of credit guarantee is from March 27, 2008 to March 27, 2009, and the credit guarantee limit under this letter is from March 27, 2008 to March 27, 2009, and that “the credit guarantee limit under this letter is to be operated including the balance of the guarantee in accordance with the Gu newsletter No. 1 omitted) issued in the form of a certificate of credit (written guarantee No. 2 omitted), and (hereinafter “written credit guarantee certificate No. 2”).

5) Around March 25, 2008, Defendant Company submitted a second credit guarantee certificate to Korea Exchange Bank, and entered into an additional credit transaction agreement with Korea Exchange Bank to extend the loan amount to KRW 615 million on March 27, 2009 and the due date for payment was extended to March 27, 2009. Around March 25, 2008, Defendant Company paid KRW 15.6 million to Korea Exchange Bank, KRW 15.6 million on March 25, 2008, and KRW 9.4 million on March 26, 2008, respectively.

(b) The occurrence of claims for subrogation and indemnity;

1) On August 26, 2008, the Defendant Company lost the interest of the term of the loan due to the delay of principal, and on October 13, 2008, the Korea Exchange Bank claimed against the Plaintiff for the performance of the obligation to guarantee the principal of the Defendant Company’s loan amounting to KRW 315 million and interest, based on the second credit guarantee form.

2) The amount that the Plaintiff is liable to repay to the Korea Exchange Bank under the credit guarantee certificate of Article 2 was KRW 320,022,014 [the principal of the debt + KRW 315,000,022,014 (the interest rate of KRW 5,000,000 from August 26, 2008 to November 4, 2008; interest rate of KRW 8.196%). However, on November 5, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35,50,000,000 and interest of KRW 5,580,010 to the Korea Exchange Bank on behalf of the Defendant pursuant to the credit guarantee certificate of Article 2. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21135, Nov. 1, 2008>

3) According to the credit guarantee agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, when the Plaintiff fulfilled the guaranteed obligation, the Defendant Company, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 agreed to pay the Plaintiff’s repayment amount and damages for delay in accordance with the interest rate determined by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s interest rate for delay is 11% per annum.

4) In addition, Defendant Company and Defendants 2, 3, and 4 agreed to pay the Plaintiff the cost of securing the claim. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,906,670 to the said cost of preserving the claim.

C. Contract to establish a mortgage and registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate listed in the attached list 1 (hereinafter “instant one real estate”).

On April 2, 2008, Defendant 3 concluded a mortgage agreement with Defendant 5 on the instant real estate owned by himself (hereinafter “first mortgage agreement”) and on April 3, 2008, the establishment registration of the instant real estate was completed on April 3, 2008 with Seoul Southern District Court No. 16846, and on November 17, 2008, with Defendant 6 entered into a mortgage agreement on the instant real estate (hereinafter “second mortgage agreement”) with Defendant 1 on the same day, and on the same day, the establishment registration was completed on November 17, 2008 with Seoul Southern District Court registered on November 17, 2008.

D. A donation contract and ownership transfer registration for the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “instant two real estate”).

Defendant 4 purchased the instant real estate on August 1, 2008 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name on August 8, 2008, and entered into a donation contract with Defendant 7 on the same day (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) with Defendant 2 on the same day, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant 7’s District Court’s receipt No. 11309 on August 8, 2008 on the instant real estate 2 on the same day.

(e) Property status;

1) Defendant 3

At the time of concluding the mortgage agreement, Defendant 3’s active property was the instant real property worth approximately KRW 455 million at the market price. However, the instant real property was the subject of the mortgage agreement, which was established on the basis of the maximum debt amount, KRW 3187.5 million, the obligor, Defendant 3, and Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and thus, Defendant 3’s responsible property was KRW 1362.5 million (the market price of the instant one real property - KRW 455.5 million - the maximum debt amount of the mortgage - KRW 315.5 million), and Defendant 3’s liability was the subject of the claim amount against the Plaintiff, KRW 155 million, and KRW 150 million against Defendant 5,00,000, KRW 47 million against Defendant 6, KRW 512 million, and KRW 300,000 against Defendant 3.

2) Defendant 4

At the time of the donation contract of this case, the real estate of this case was the only property of Defendant 4.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap 1 through 9, 11, 12, 16, Eul 1 through 4 (including each number), the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the representative director of the Korea Exchange Bank, the representative director of the Korea Exchange Bank, and the fact-finding results of each fact-finding with respect to the two main markets, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Company, Defendant 2, 3, and 4

(a) The occurrence of liability for the payment of indemnity;

1) According to the above facts, the defendant company and the defendant 2, 3, and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of indemnity and damages for delay to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

2) Determination as to Defendant 3’s assertion

Defendant 3 asserted that Defendant 3 is a joint and several surety due to the first credit guarantee agreement, but the guarantee period has expired on March 26, 2008, and the guarantee period was not in the position of joint and several surety in August 26, 2008, and the second credit guarantee agreement is entirely a new contract different from the first credit guarantee agreement, and thus, the second credit guarantee agreement does not bear the indemnity obligation of this case.

However, in a case where the guaranteed obligation of the plaintiff is confirmed at the expiration of the term of guarantee in a credit guarantee made by the plaintiff, the guaranteed obligation of the plaintiff for indemnity also arises under the condition that the guaranteed obligation of the guaranteed obligation of the plaintiff is repaid, and the guaranteed obligation of the plaintiff for the guaranteed obligation of the guaranteed obligation of the guaranteed obligation of the established guaranteed obligation shall be liable for the plaintiff for the guaranteed obligation of the established guaranteed obligation even after the expiration of the

As seen earlier, on March 26, 2008, at the expiration of the guarantee period of the first guarantee agreement by the Plaintiff, the guaranteed obligation borne by the Plaintiff was finalized at KRW 350 million, and the Plaintiff performed the guaranteed obligation at the request of the Korea Exchange Bank. As such, Defendant 3 is liable to guarantee the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity. Accordingly, Defendant 3’s above assertion is without merit.

B. Scope of obligations to pay indemnity amount

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant company, the defendant 2, the defendant 3, and the defendant 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 357,486,680 won and 355,580,010 won from November 5, 2008 with interest of KRW 355,580,010,00 in total, the loan principal of 355,000 won and interest of KRW 580,010.

2) Determination

The second credit guarantee agreement is a guarantee for the renewal of the first credit guarantee agreement, and the credit guarantee limit has been reduced to 315 million won on March 27, 2008 under the second credit guarantee agreement, and the limit of the principal debt to be borne by the plaintiff is 315 million won (the Korea Exchange Bank also filed a claim for the performance of the guarantee liability with the plaintiff on the basis of the second credit guarantee agreement issued pursuant to the second credit guarantee agreement). Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 320 million won (315 million won on the principal of the guaranteed obligation + interest 502 million won + interest 502,014 won (from August 26, 2008 to November 4, 2008; interest rate of 71,8.196%) to the defendant company, the defendant company's 2, 304,3050 won to the plaintiff, and the defendant company's debt repayment damages can not be paid more than 320 million won to the plaintiff.

Ultimately, Defendant Company, and Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and 4 jointly and severally and severally are liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 321,928,684 [the principal of the guaranteed obligation + KRW 3500 million + interest of KRW 5,022,014 + cost of preserving claims + KRW 1,906,670]; and damages for delay from November 5, 2008. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to Defendant Company, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 is with merit within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claims are without merit.

C. Determination on Defendant 4’s assertion

Defendant 4 asserts that Defendant 2’s signing on the guarantee agreement under Article 110 of the Civil Act, on the ground that Defendant 4 did not hear any explanation and signed on the guarantee agreement by Defendant 2’s deception with the Korea Export Insurance Corporation, entering into the Korea Export Insurance Corporation and entering into the Korea Export Insurance Corporation, Defendant 4’s signing on the guarantee agreement with Defendant 2.

Defendant 4’s assertion that Defendant 2 deceiving Defendant 4 is insufficient to acknowledge solely on the basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, Defendant 4’s above assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant company, the defendant 2, 3, and 4 jointly and severally and severally liable to the plaintiff 321,928,684 won [the principal of the guaranteed obligation 300 million won + interest rate of 5,022,014 won (71% from August 26, 2008 to November 4, 2008) + expenses for preserving claims 1,906,670]; among them 320,022,014 won from November 5, 2008, which is the date of subrogation, are deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation of this case; 11% per annum under the agreement until December 4, 2009; and 8.19% per annum from December 5, 2009 to the date of full payment; and

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 5

(a) Occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

1) As to the preserved claim

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In the near future, where the probability of the claim has been realized in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da27905 delivered on Nov. 28, 1995, etc.).

According to the above facts, although at the time of the first mortgage contract, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity was not actually created at the time of the first mortgage contract, it was already established a credit guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company, which is a legal relation that forms the basis of the first mortgage contract, and a joint guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 3, and the defendant company's performance of the guarantee liability to the Korea Exchange Bank on August 26, 2008 due to the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident on August 26, 2008 as the interest in arrears was delayed, it can be said that there was a high probability that the plaintiff performed the guarantee liability to the Korea Exchange Bank on November 5, 2008. Thus, at the time of the first mortgage contract, it can be said that there was a high probability that the defendant company's financial condition becomes worse at the time of the conclusion of the first mortgage contract and that the above claim for indemnity was established because

2) As to the fraudulent act

Unless there are other special circumstances, the debtor's act of offering real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, to one of the creditors, becomes a fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation in relation to other creditors, and the debtor's act of offering security to a third party against a third party is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act objectively (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006, etc.). As seen above, as the defendant 3 provided the real estate of this case, which is the only property of the debtor, to the defendant 5 under excess of the debt, it constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff as the creditor, and as long as the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, it is presumed that the defendant 5's bad faith, the beneficiary, is also presumed to be the defendant 5.

3) Determination on Defendant 5’s defense

Defendant 5, on October 9, 2006, sold the instant real estate to Defendant 3 with the price of KRW 330 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant 3 on November 3, 2006, but Defendant 3 did not know the fact that Defendant 3 did not pay only 180 million out of the purchase price and did not pay the remainder, and did not know that Defendant 3 would prejudice other creditors.

Defendant 5’s defense is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant 5 was unaware of the harm to other creditors on the sole basis of the descriptions of No. 8, Eul evidence, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to support it. Thus, Defendant 5’s defense is without merit.

(b) Reinstatement;

Therefore, the contract to establish a collateral security concluded on April 2, 2008 with respect to the instant real estate between Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 should be revoked. Defendant 5 is obligated to implement the registration of the Seoul Southern District Court on the instant real estate and the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment of a collateral security completed on April 3, 2008 with respect to the instant real estate by Defendant 3.

4. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 6

(a) Occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

According to the facts acknowledged above, Defendant 3 already concluded the second mortgage contract on real estate of this case, which is the only property of Defendant 6, in excess of the obligation after the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant 3 was already created, and the above act constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the intent of undermining the Plaintiff as the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Defendant 6’s bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed.

As to this, Defendant 6 lent to Defendant 3 the amount of KRW 18 million on October 8, 2007, KRW 23 million on December 17, 2007, KRW 60 million on January 25, 2008, and KRW 47 million on a total amount of KRW 47 million on January 25, 2008, Defendant 3 did not know that the contract was concluded on November 17, 2008 and registered to secure loan claims due to the failure to repay the above loan, and did not know that he would prejudice other creditors.

Defendant 6 did not know that Defendant 6 did not harm other creditors on the sole basis of the statement Nos. 3-1 through 3, No. 4-1 and No. 4-2, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, Defendant 6’s defense is without merit.

(b) Reinstatement;

Therefore, the mortgage contract concluded on November 17, 2008 with respect to the instant real estate between Defendant 3 and Defendant 6 should be revoked. Defendant 6 is obligated to implement the registration of the Seoul Southern District Court with respect to the instant real estate and the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on November 17, 2008 by the Seoul Southern District Court No. 6078, Nov. 17, 2008.

5. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 7

(a) Occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

1) As to the preserved claim

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In the near future, where the probability of the claim has been realized in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da27905 delivered on Nov. 28, 1995, etc.).

According to the above facts, although at the time of the donation contract of this case, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity was not actually created, it was already established a credit guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company, which is the legal relation that forms the basis of the claim for indemnity, and a joint and several guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 4, and the defendant company's performance of guarantee liability to the Korea Exchange Bank on November 5, 2008 as the credit guarantee accident occurred on August 26, 2008 due to the overdue interest of the loan, as seen above, the plaintiff performed the guarantee liability to the Korea Exchange Bank on August 5, 2008. Thus, it can be said that there is a high probability that the defendant company's claim for indemnity against the defendant 4 was created due to the aggravation of the financial condition of the defendant company at the time of the conclusion of the donation contract of this case and the credit guarantee claim for indemnity due to the nearest credit guarantee accident at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this

2) As to the fraudulent act

The debtor's act of transferring real estate, which is his sole property, to another person without compensation, is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstances, so the debtor's intention of deception is presumed to be a fraudulent act, and the burden of proof that there was no person who has purchased or transferred it has been malicious (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). As seen earlier, since the defendant 4 donated the real estate of this case, which is his sole property, to the defendant 7, the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act knowing that the plaintiff would be harmed, and as long as the donation contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, the defendant 7's bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed to be a fraudulent act

3) Determination on Defendant 7’s defense

Defendant 7 raises a defense to the effect that Defendant 7 merely received the instant real estate gift from Defendant 4, but did not know that he would prejudice other creditors.

Defendant 7’s defense is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant 7 was unaware of the harm to other creditors solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, Defendant 7’s defense is without merit.

(b) Reinstatement;

Therefore, the gift agreement entered into on August 8, 2008 with respect to the instant two real estate between Defendant 4 and Defendant 7 shall be revoked, and Defendant 7 shall have the obligation to implement the procedures for registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on August 8, 2008 with respect to the instant two real estate, and the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on August 8, 2008 as the receipt No. 11309.

6. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant 5, 6, and 7 are justified. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant company and the defendant 2, 3, and 4 are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Shin Young-jin (Presiding Judge)