2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. A Co., Ltd. is a creditor who loans KRW 137,00,000 to C on July 31, 2013 at interest rate of 12% per annum and due date for payment on October 30, 2013.

(B) After this, A, a corporation, by agreement with C, has adjusted the loan amount to KRW 133,710,000, while the due date was extended to December 30, 2014).

Meanwhile, the Defendant: C on March 17, 201, KRW 100,000,000, and the same year

3. A loan of KRW 95,000,000 was made on August 18.

C. On December 26, 2014, C entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant to secure the above obligation against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”), and on the same day, C entered into a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of loan (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”) with the Defendant on the same day.

On the other hand, A Bank was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap151 on October 29, 2013. On the same day, the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy of A Company (hereinafter “A Bank”) under the Depositor Protection Act on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] A. C., which is in excess of the Plaintiff’s claim as to the overall purport of the pleading, as stated in Gap’s No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and Eul’s evidence No. 3, and as a whole, entered into the instant trade reservation with the Defendant, and the Defendant’s completion of the instant provisional registration constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff. The said trade reservation should be revoked, and the provisional registration of this case should be revoked as restitution.

Judgment

In order to become a fraudulent act by offering security to a specific creditor, the requirements are to bring about the reduction of the joint security of other general creditors by allowing the debtor to be given preferential payment to the creditor only in excess of his/her obligation and the creditor to be given preferential payment compared to other creditors. Therefore, in order to determine whether the debtor's act of offering security becomes a fraudulent act, it exceeds the obligation by examining the debtor's property status.