1. On April 10, 2014, the Defendant and Nonparty C made a promise to return substitutes, which was concluded on April 10, 2014, regarding the size of 886 square meters prior to Ansan-si D.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s 200,000,000 won on July 1, 2010 to E, and the same month

2. Around December 31, 2010, KRW 10,000 was fixed and lent until the due date for reimbursement. Since E was not repaid, E drafted a notarial deed on March 26, 2014 for a monetary loan for consumption with a purport to pay KRW 210,000,000 to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2014, and C jointly and severally guaranteed this.

B. On April 10, 2014, C borrowed KRW 50,000,00 from the Defendant, and entered into a promise to return substitutes (hereinafter “instant promise to return substitutes”) with the Defendant as to the size of 886 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) prior to Ansan-si, Ansan-si, an owner of his/her own property, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as of April 10, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate by the Suwon District Court No. 35197, Apr. 10, 2014.

C. After that, on December 30, 2014, C completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on December 30, 2014, as the receipt No. 136879 on December 30, 2014, with respect to F forest land of 1,200 square meters in Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the preserved claim, on April 10, 2014, at the time of the promise to return the substitute of this case, the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety claim against C was established, and thus, the above claim can be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. The act of an obligor in excess of his/her obligation for a fraudulent act or for an intentional and intentional act constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to another obligee, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da10864 delivered on September 9, 1997). In light of the above legal principles, the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the instant case, and Korean standards for the stock company, the Bank, the Bank of Korea, and the Industrial Bank of Korea.