사해행위취소등
1. Defendant C:
A. Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. 207,890,967
B. Plaintiff B, as well as KRW 129,587,391, respectively.
1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), as to the plaintiffs' claim for the payment of the money against defendant C, the plaintiffs supplied building materials to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), the representative director of the defendant C, from September 2012 to September 2013. The price of the non-paid materials as of September 30, 2013, is KRW 207,890,967 for the plaintiff, KRW 129,587,391 for the plaintiff Eul, and KRW 129,587,391 for the plaintiff Eul, as of September 30, 2013, Eul prepared and delivered to the plaintiffs a "case of submission of the payment plan for the payment of the unpaid amount," which expressed the plaintiffs' intent to pay the payment of the money in installments and the amount of the unpaid materials as of September 30, 2013, it is reasonable to deem the above personal debt guarantee of the defendant C as the above.
Therefore, Defendant C, as a guarantor for the obligation to pay unpaid materials, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 207,890,967, KRW 129,587,391, and each of the above amounts from October 1, 2013 to November 5, 2014, the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case from October 1, 2013, the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of
2. Determination as to the claim for revocation of fraudulent act against Defendant D
A. While Defendant C bears a large amount of material price liability against the Plaintiff, Defendant C transferred a right to lease on a deposit basis on real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the only property on October 2, 2013 to Defendant D, which is the sole property of the Plaintiff. The above transfer contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to creditors against Defendant C, including the Plaintiffs, and thus ought to be revoked.
B. Determination A, 6.