Any creditor who has acquired a claim after a fraudulent act shall not demand a distribution by using the effect of reinstatement.

Any creditor who has acquired a claim after a fraudulent act shall not demand a distribution by using the effect of reinstatement.

2016 grouped 5235797 Demurrer against distribution

AAAA Guarantee Foundation

Korea

February 28, 2017

March 14, 2017

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on October 6, 2016, the CentralCC Central District Court 2016 another real estate ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the distribution schedule prepared on October 6, 2016, the amount of 145,305,316 won against the Defendant shall be corrected to 346,640 won, and the deleted KRW 14,958,676 shall be distributed in proportion to the order of each creditor’s claims and the amount of claims other than the Defendant.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on October 6, 2016, the amount of dividends against the defendant 145,305,305,316,317,717, and the amount of dividends of KRW 110,617,59 to the plaintiff out of the distribution schedule prepared by the CentralCC District Court 2016 ○○○○○○○○○ Real Estate and the case of 2016 ○○○○○○○○○○○○ (Dual) in relation to the compulsory auction of the

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with BB Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Energy Co., Ltd.”) on the credit guarantee principal amounting to KRW 95,00,000, and the credit guarantee period from April 13, 201 to April 12, 2011 (which extended the guarantee period by April 11, 2014), and KimD jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of the non-party company under the said credit guarantee agreement to the Plaintiff.

B. A new company issued by the Plaintiff pursuant to the above credit guarantee agreement in the future of the Bank

A credit guarantee guarantee amount of KRW 100,000,000 was loaned as security, but a credit guarantee accident occurred as a result of a loss of profit on March 4, 2014, and the Plaintiff paid the guaranteed liability by subrogation to the Industrial Bank of Korea on April 22, 2014.

C. On January 16, 2014, KimD entered into a sales contract with thisG with respect to the 82 F.F. F. F. 82 F. F. F. 82 F. F. 112 Dong 1101 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On February 24, 2014, KimD completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Central District Court Branch Registry No. 8016 on February 24, 2014.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit to revoke a fraudulent act against KimD and Lee GG, and KimD paid to the Plaintiff KRW 72,956,694 and delay damages, and paid to the Credit Guarantee Fund KRW 696,00,297 and delay damages. The above sales contract entered into between KimD and Lee GG was revoked, and the above sales contract entered into between KimD and Lee GG was revoked, and the ownership of KimD was recovered.

E. The Credit Guarantee Fund and the Plaintiff: (a) the CentralCC District Court 2016 Gamblon on the instant real property

HHHHH real estate compulsory auction, and 2016 other JJJ application. The Defendant requested delivery of KRW 145,625,250 in the instant auction procedure.

F. On October 6, 2016, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing the amount of KRW 145,305,316, in the order of 3rd priority, each of the lessees with the fixed date of date of distribution, and the defendant who is the tax payer (non-competent).

G. Meanwhile, based on the above final judgment, the Plaintiff demanded the distribution of KRW 110,617,59, and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund was the applicant creditor of the instant auction, but did not receive all dividends.

H. The Plaintiff and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund appeared on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and the Plaintiff as to the portion of KRW 110,617,59 out of the amount of dividends against the Defendant on the instant dividend schedule, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund raised an objection against the total amount of dividends against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on October 12, 2016 (CC Central District Court Decision 2016Da5235444).

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-7, Eul 1's each entry, significant facts, the purport of the whole pleadings

1) The Plaintiff is the CentralCC District Court 2014da5113824, the Credit Guarantee Fund 2014da53, the CentralCC High Court 2015Na2038185

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

The obligee's right of revocation shall reduce his general property with the knowledge that the obligor would prejudice the obligee.

The right to preserve the debtor's property for all creditors by cancelling the act and restoring the debtor's property to its original state, but the creditor who acquired the claim after the fraudulent act did not grasp the property restored by the revocation of the fraudulent act as the joint security of the creditor at the time of the acquisition of the claim, and does not include the revocation of the fraudulent act and the creditor who is subject to the effect of restitution under Article 407 of the Civil Act (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da18502 Decided June 23, 2009)

With respect to the instant case, a fraudulent act by the Health Board, KimD and Lee G on the instant real property

The facts that the time when a sales contract was concluded on January 16, 2014 are as seen above. Of the tax claims claimed by the Defendant during the instant auction procedure, the legal deadline for a tax claim that comes before the said fraudulent act date is 346,640, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the real estate of this case is owned in the name of the beneficiary of this GG and the above final judgment.

Even if a tax claim exceeds 346,640 won due to the cancellation of registration of transfer of right, the defendant who acquired a tax claim after the above fraudulent act shall be prohibited from participating in the dividend within the above scope.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that, even if the remaining claims, excluding the above KRW 346,640, among his own tax claims, were established after the fraudulent act, the distribution against the Defendant is justifiable, since there are circumstances meeting the requirements under which the claim not yet established at the time of the fraudulent act satisfies exceptionally the preservation claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, at least 15,421,40 won (=15,768,040 won - 346,640 won) and the time when the tax liability became effective prior to January 16, 2014 (=15,768,040 won - 346,640 won).

On the other hand, the above precedents asserted by the defendant cannot be applied differently from this case as the legal principles on the creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's revocation lawsuit

The defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(c) Repreparation of a distribution schedule;

In a case where several creditors have filed a lawsuit of demurrer against each other to distribute part of the dividends to the other party to the new creditors, and even if each lawsuit is deliberated in a different trial division or is tried in the same trial division, it is inappropriate to set the amount with the creditors entitled to receive distribution by judgment, in view of the disputed part, in a case where the distribution amount is simply concurrently examined, and it is not appropriate to set the distribution schedule again and to take other distribution procedures (see the latter part of Article 157 of the Civil Execution

In the case of this case, not only the plaintiff but also the Credit Guarantee Fund creditor also auction of this case

As seen earlier, it is inappropriate to determine the amount with the creditors entitled to receive distributions in this judgment on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant made an objection to distribution as the Plaintiff with respect to the dividend amount; and (b) the Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution with the CentralCC District Court 2016Da523544.

Ultimately, 144,958,676 won of the Defendant’s dividend amount to be deleted among the instant distribution schedule should be distributed in proportion to the creditor’s creditor’s priority and claim amount.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

(s) The application for money shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

-