1. A lease agreement entered into between Nonparty C and Defendant B around March 30, 201 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

The ground for the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is attached Form 3-A.

same as the entry in the subsection.

The defendant is the most lessee or at least the Housing Lease Protection Act to abuse the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus the protection of the above Act is not possible.

The response of each of the financial transaction information by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 23 (including paper numbers), the National Bank of Korea, the No. pool No. pool No. 31, and the Franchi branch of Bupyeong-gu No. 1 to 23 is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is without merit.

In full view of the Plaintiff’s claim as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 23 (including additional number), the fact inquiry results of this court against the National Court Administration, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the response to financial transaction information of the new bank, a corporation’s submission of financial transaction information by the new bank, can be acknowledged as the same facts as the entries in paragraphs 1, 2,

Examining the Defendant’s argument well, around March 30, 201, it can be seen as a defense that, at the time of a lease agreement, the conclusion of the contract would cause harm to the obligor C’s creditors.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion only with the descriptions of Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 5, and there is no other proof of the defendant.

Rather, there is a combination of the defendant's argument that it is possible for the defendant to consider the lease contract to some extent with knowledge of the circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

Thus, since the above lease contract between C and the defendant is an act detrimental to the creditor, it should be revoked by Article 406 of the Civil Code.

As a result, 22,00,000 won of the distribution schedule stated in Paragraph (2) of the order, which was scheduled to be distributed by the defendant, shall be deleted, and it shall be corrected to be distributed to the plaintiff.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is accepted, and the defendant A.