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

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged with Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 5-5 through 8, Gap evidence 9, 10-1 through 5, Gap evidence 11-1 through 5, Gap evidence 12, and Eul evidence 6.

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Plaintiff’s non-performance of options

(1) On September 24, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”) with respect to US$ 150,00,00 that is scheduled to obtain a loan from the Hanmi bank (hereinafter “non-U.S.”), which provides a credit guarantee agreement from September 24, 2002 to September 23, 2003 (hereinafter “non-U.S. guarantee agreement”). The Plaintiff issued a credit guarantee agreement (Evidence 2) with the aforementioned content in non-U.S. agreement.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant guarantee agreement, the Non-Performanceion agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of subrogation paid by the Plaintiff for the performance of the said guaranteed obligation, damages for delay in accordance with the rate of damages for delay as determined by the Plaintiff, and expenses related to the performance of the guaranteed obligation.

Article 23(1) of the Act provides that the guarantee period of the guarantee agreement of this case was changed to US dollars 102,00 on September 23, 2003 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on September 23, 2003. The guarantee period of this case was changed to US$ 102,000 on September 21, 2004. The guarantee period of this case was changed to US$ 102,00.

Then, since October 5, 2004, Libydogdog was in arrears in paying the interest on the above loans to Hanmi Bank. The Plaintiff caused a guarantee accident by losing the benefit of time on November 23, 2004. On March 28, 2005, the Plaintiff subrogated to Hanmi Bank for the principal amounting to KRW 106,994,148 (= Principal amounting to KRW 104,703,000 + interest amounting to KRW 2,291,148).

(v) on March 28, 2005, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 254,580 out of the amount of subrogated payment, and the amount paid by the Plaintiff as a legal procedural expense for the purpose of preserving the claim for reimbursement due to the said subrogation is KRW 336,510, and on April 17, 2003, the rate of delay damages determined by the Plaintiff up to three months after the performance of the guaranteed obligation is 14% per annum and 16% per annum thereafter.

(b) Transfer, etc. of right to lease on deposit and security deposit;

(1) On August 30, 201, non-party 2 entered a lease on a deposit basis with the non-party 3, 200,000 won from September 30, 2001 to September 29, 200 (the alteration during the period from September 30, 2005 to September 30, 200), with respect to the building described in the separate sheet No. 2, the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,00 from September 30 to September 29, 2003; the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000 from September 30, 201 to September 29, 2003; the lease deposit period of KRW 30,000,000 to KRW 9,00 from September 29, 205 to KRW 30,00,00 between the owner and non-party 4 and the owner; and the duration of the lease on a deposit basis as indicated in the separate sheet No. 9. 29.

B. On August 27, 2004, she borrowed KRW 60 million from Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty of the Supreme Court decision) on August 27, 2004. To secure this, she completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring lease on a deposit basis as stated in [Attachment 1 to 4] on the 30th of the same month.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A person who has the right to lease on a deposit basis shall have the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the right to lease on a deposit basis”) shall have the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the right to lease”).” On November 15, 2004, a person who has the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis shall have the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the right to lease of a deposit in this case”) shall have the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis shall have the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis shall be registered

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. The parties' assertion

(1) At the time of the instant transfer contract, the Plaintiff established the legal relationship that forms the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Non-Prushion, and the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was actually established by subrogated payment of the Plaintiff’s loan to the Plaintiff after about one month from the date of conclusion of the instant transfer contract. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that, in the event that the Plaintiff disposes of each of the above lease on a deposit basis and the deposit basis due to the absence of particular property other than each lease on a deposit basis and each of the lease on a deposit basis, the act of transferring the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Defendant along with each of the above lease on a deposit basis is a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, a creditor, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant asserted to the effect that the transfer contract of this case did not constitute a fraudulent act, or that he did not know that the transfer contract of this case was harmful to the creditor of the non-performance of the non-performance of the non-performance of the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to return the deposit basis, because the non-performance of the right to lease on a deposit basis did not constitute a fraudulent act, and the transfer contract of this case did not know that the transfer contract of this case was harmful to the creditor of the non-performance of the non-performance of the right to lease on a deposit basis as it did not know that the non-performance of the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to return the deposit amount had been partially repaid.

B. Determination

(1) As a matter of course, a creditor’s claim for the repayment of an obligation does not interfere with it on the ground that there exists another creditor as a matter of course, and the debtor bears the obligation to perform the obligation according to the principal place of the obligation and does not refuse the performance of the obligation on the ground that there is another creditor. Thus, even in cases where the debtor’s repayment to a specific creditor under excess of the obligation results in a decrease in the joint security of other creditors, the repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act in principle unless the debtor, in collusion with some creditors, has an intent to harm other creditors, and thus, the same applies to the transfer of other monetary claims in lieu of the repayment of the existing monetary obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1205, Jun. 24, 2003).

In full view of the aforementioned evidence: ① the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Non-Party 1 on February 1, 2004 on the manufacture and supply of the Doctrine DV plicker under the order of the Doctrine, and supplied the Defendant with Doctrine DV pleral equivalent to KRW 3.4 billion from around that time to October 2004; ② The Doctrine was the main business of selling the Doctrine 1 to be supplied by the Defendant; ② the Doctrine 1 to the Defendant, the sales of the Doctrine 4 to the Doctrine 201 to the Doctrine 204 to the Defendant, which would have been difficult to manage due to the Doctrine 1 to the end of the 2004 to the end of the Doctrine 1 to the Defendant’s sale of the Doctrine 271 to the Doctrine 28,2004.

As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Defendant entered into a supply contract, such as DNA display, and the details and scale of its performance, and in particular, the process of entering into the transfer contract of this case, and in particular, as the Defendant intended to continue to engage in transactions with the Defendant by urging the payment of unpaid amount to be paid to Non-Party 1, and concluded the transfer contract of this case. On the other hand, the Non-Adiversation did not have any possibility of incurring considerable loss on the Defendant’s business if the transaction with Non-Adiversation would be suspended, and as such, it is difficult to conclude that Non-Party 1’s claim for lease on a deposit basis was made on the premise that it would be difficult to conclude that Non-Party 1’s claim for lease on a deposit basis with the obligee of this case without any other reasons, even if the Defendant did not enter into a fraudulent act in collusion with the obligee of this case and the obligee of this case’s transfer of lease on a deposit basis on the premise that it would not have any other reasons to recognize the Plaintiff’s transfer of lease on a deposit without any other reasons.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of List of Chonsegwon]

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)