1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff acquired the loan claim from Nonparty H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) and I (hereinafter “I”), and H was rendered a favorable judgment on October 15, 1996 by filing a lawsuit for the loan claim against G on the part of Busan District Court 96Da56135, Oct. 15, 1996 prior to the assignment of the above claim, and the first was also rendered a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit for the loan claim against the Busan District Court 96Da1990 on March 19, 196.

B. Meanwhile, on June 5, 191, G was awarded a contract for a land readjustment project for the project site by a non-party association established for the land readjustment project of the Jririwon in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do (hereinafter “instant construction”).

However, while performing the above construction project, G was unable to become insolvent due to a large amount of obligation, the construction project was suspended on June 1993. On April 27, 1994, G agreed to take over the land secured for recompense of development outlay amounting to KRW 2,901,957,160 from the settlement of accounts differently with the non-party union on April 27, 1994.

C. On October 11, 2014, G’s representative liquidator transferred to the Defendant the right to claim for ownership transfer registration of the instant land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay (hereinafter “right to claim for transfer of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay”) KRW 3.75 billion to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the "transfer of claim of this case"). [This case's ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 2 and 7 (including those with serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Defendant’s acquisition of the right to claim the transfer of land allotted by G in recompense for development outlay in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act as a result of the decrease in the joint security of the general creditors against G including the Plaintiff, thereby increasing the amount of excess of G’s obligation. G was well aware of these circumstances, and thus, was also willing to commit a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the assignment contract of this case between G and the defendant shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be restored to G.