(a) Revocation of a collective security agreement concluded on November 10, 201 between the Defendant and Nonparty ParkB (****************).

B. On November 11, 201, No. 114695, the Defendant performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near Changwon District Court, Kimhae-hae registry office, the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation on ParkB from November 201 to January 31, 201, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax of KRW 1, 2007, KRW 000, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax of KRW 2, 2007, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax of KRW 1, 2008, but ParkB did not pay it.

B. On November 8, 201, in the course of conducting the tax investigation, the Plaintiff sent a notice to ParkB to submit explanatory data on the part of the under-reported value-added tax amount.

C. On the other hand, ParkB registered the establishment of a lower right on November 11, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment1”) to the Defendant, who is his wife, on the same day (hereinafter “instant apartment contract and registration”).

D. At the time of entering into the instant mortgage agreement, ParkB’s active property was 000 won ( =00 won x1/2 shares) other than the instant apartment, whereas the small property was 000 won ( = 000 won x1/2 shares) against the National Bank of Korea, the first priority collateral obligation against the National Bank of Korea ( = 000 won x1/2 shares), the second priority collateral obligation against the National Bank of Korea (=1/2 shares) against the National Bank of Korea, and the second priority collateral collateral obligation against the National Bank of Korea (=1/2 shares x1/2 shares), and the small property was 00 won with respect to the Plaintiff, and the small property was 00 won with positive property.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of right to revoke the fraudulent act;

(a) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

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 the object of creditor's right of revocation in relation to other creditors, and the debtor's act of offering security to a third party is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act objectively, barring any other special circumstances, the creditor may cancel the juristic act and apply for restitution accordingly unless the beneficiary proves that he had acted in good faith at the time of the rate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). A debtor's act of offering the apartment of this case, which had been in excess of the debt at the time, as a security, offered the apartment of this case to the defendant is an act of reducing the common security of other general creditors by obtaining preferential reimbursement only to the defendant, and ParkBB still continues to be in excess until the conclusion of the pleadings of this case, and barring special circumstances, the act of offering security to the defendant of ParkB constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff and the beneficiary.

B. Defendant’s bona fide defense

1) The defendant's assertion

The Defendant loaned KRW 80,00,00 to ParkB on August 29, 2008, and KRW 000 on February 5, 2010, and received a certificate of borrowing from ParkB that the Defendant would pay KRW 00,000, including principal and interest, until October 31, 201, due to the failure to receive the principal and interest thereon, and was issued by ParkB on April 5, 201, the Defendant was merely a bona fide beneficiary, and the Defendant was merely a bona fide beneficiary.

2) Determination

Therefore, even if the mortgage contract in this case was concluded in order to guarantee the payment of loans to ParkB as alleged by the defendant, and ParkB, which had been in excess of the obligation, offered the apartment of this case as collateral to the defendant, which is a real estate, to the defendant, becomes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors as seen earlier. Furthermore, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant, as argued by the defendant, lent 00 won out of 00 won borrowed from the bank and the bank interest was paid to ParkB, and the loan was paid to ParkB because ParkB did not pay it, it seems that the defendant was well aware of the economic status of ParkB through the Dong, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to reverse the presumption of bad faith by the evidence submitted by the defendant, the beneficiary of value-added tax.

3. Reinstatement;

Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the mortgage establishment registration of this case to the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is decided as per Disposition.