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

On June 11, 2015, the non-party company sold the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the only property to the defendant on June 11, 2015 when the debt exceeds the debt, and the above sales contract is a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the above sales contract between the non-party company and the defendant should be revoked, and since the right to collateral security is cancelled by payment after the fraudulent act, the defendant must restore the plaintiffs to its original state.

2. Determination

A. On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff A lent KRW 500 million interest monthly to Nonparty Company as of January 15, 2013; Plaintiff B loaned KRW 300 million to Nonparty Company on October 7, 2014; and on December 7, 2014, Plaintiff B lent the loan to Nonparty Company as of December 11, 2015; Nonparty Company entered into a contract to transfer the machinery, apparatus, vehicles and corporeal movables, all business rights, etc. including the instant real estate to the Defendant at KRW 13,475,00,000 (the fact that there is no dispute, evidence No. 2-1,2, and evidence No. 3).

On the other hand, where an immovable property on which a mortgage is established is transferred by a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act is established within the scope of the value of the immovable property, that is, the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the market value (not consistent with the publicly notified land value). If the secured debt amount exceeds the value of the real estate, the assignment of the real estate concerned cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act. The amount of the secured debt here is not the maximum debt

(See Court Decision 97Da10864 delivered on September 9, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da42618 delivered on October 9, 2001, etc.)

(c)each entry of Gap evidence 4-1 to 14, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, 5, and 6.