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

A. On May 8, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with C in the amount of KRW 10 million.

The above loan contract was extended every year and extended until May 8, 2017.

B. On July 14, 2016, C and the Defendant changed the contractor of the instant insurance that C had been the contractor into the Defendant.

(hereinafter “Change of policyholder of this case”). C.

C paid interest by May 8, 2017, the maturity date of the loan, but the said loan contract was not thereafter extended.

C was unable to pay the principal on May 8, 2017, the maturity date of the loan.

The Plaintiff’s above loan claim against C is KRW 11,270,656 as of February 1, 2018 ( principal KRW 10,00,000, interest KRW 1,270,656).

Attached Form

Nos. 1 as of July 14, 2016, the total amount of payments as of July 14, 2016 is KRW 189,614, and the actual receipt amount as of May 24, 2019 as of May 24, 2019, is KRW 1,904, 164, 2,293,695.

(C) Since each insurance contract obtained a loan from the Plaintiff as security, it is the amount which remains after deducting the loan, etc. from the refund for cancellation] / [based on recognition] without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff had a claim for a loan against C, and C was in excess of his/her obligation because there was no specific property, other than the cancellation refund of the instant insurance.

Nevertheless, C changed the policyholder to the insurance of this case.

Such change of policy holders constitutes fraudulent act.

The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff, at its value, the total sum of the total amount paid and the actual amount received (=189,614 Won 1,904,164 Won 2,293,695 Won) and damages for delay.

B. Although it is required that the claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation 1 was, in principle, incurred prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim at the time of such fraudulent act.