A. On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against C with respect to the purchase price of goods as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015 tea79361, and on December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Plaintiff 56,431,100 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from January 6, 2016 to the date of full payment. The said payment order was finalized on January 20, 2016.

B. On February 22, 2016, C entered into a pre-sale agreement (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) with the Defendant, who is his/her father, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) that is the only property of the Defendant, and the Defendant completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration under the title of Article 1011 of the Daejeon District Court’s Masan Branch Branch Office of the Daejeon District Court on February 22, 2016.

C. On March 12, 2018, C entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate under Article 19242 on March 21, 2018, by the receipt of the ASEAN Branch of the Daejeon District Court’s Masan Branch Branch Office.

On the other hand, the registration of creation of a mortgage with the debtor, the mortgagee D, the maximum debt amount, KRW 30 million was completed as of March 21, 2018, which was accepted on March 21, 2018 by the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court, the Asan Branch of the District Court rendered the registration of creation of a mortgage with respect

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the price of the goods was created at the time of entering into the instant promise to sell and purchase the goods in question and the sales contract, and thus, the claim for the price of the goods in question constitutes a preserved claim for the revocation of fraudulent act against the instant promise to sell

B. The "legal act detrimental to creditors", which is the requirement for one obligee's right of revocation, is not sufficient to secure joint security for claims by reducing the debtor's assets due to the debtor's disposal of the debtor's assets.