1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff holds a promissory note with a face value of KRW 600 million issued by C.

The plaintiff seeks revocation and restitution of each fraudulent act stated in the purport of the claim made between the defendant and C by making the claim against the bill as the preserved claim.

2. In light of the fact that there is no dispute over judgment, Gap Nos. 1, 6, and Eul No. 14, and the purport of the pleading, the promissory note representing the claims for the amount of the bills claimed by the plaintiff as the preserved bonds is issued and delivered by Byung to the plaintiff in order to guarantee the obligation for the amount of goods to be incurred in the future according to the credit transaction agreement between

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied goods to C during the credit transaction period (from November 4, 2011 to November 3, 2012).

Inasmuch as the absence of the obligation for the purchase of goods, which is the obligation under the cause of the issuance of a promissory note, has become final and conclusive, the Plaintiff shall return the promissory note to C, and shall not be paid the amount by exercising

(C) The obligee's right of revocation is recognized to preserve the obligor's responsible property for the performance of the obligation.

However, as seen earlier, even if the legal act between C and the Defendant cannot be paid a bill of exchange by the Plaintiff, and thus, C’s responsible property is recovered, the Plaintiff cannot obtain satisfaction of the bill of exchange through the recovered property.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot exercise its right of revocation against the Defendant by setting its claim against the Defendant as the preserved bond.

The plaintiff's claim is rejected.