1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's revocation part is against the defendant.

1. On September 30, 2002, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she acquired the joint and several surety claim of Nonparty AC organization, and filed a lawsuit based on the above claim and received a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2004Da49677 and Seoul Central District Court 2014Guj46213). Accordingly, for KRW 40,469,897 and KRW 9,758,419, an amount equivalent to the rate of 20% per annum from July 22, 2014 to the date of full payment.

E, although the above obligation to the Plaintiff was insolvent in excess of its own responsible property, the Defendant entered into each collateral security contract, such as the entry in No. 19 through No. 21 of the attached Table 19 (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) with the Defendant, and completed each of the registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “each of the instant registrations”) to the Defendant, such as the entry in No. 19 through No. 21 of the attached Table 19 of its own real property.

Therefore, since each contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and the defendant is a beneficiary of bad faith, each contract of this case must be revoked in entirety, and each registration of this case must be revoked due to its restitution to its original state.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. As the Plaintiff asserted on January 17, 2017 filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting disposition against each of the instant registrations, the Plaintiff was aware at the latest that each of the instant contracts constituted a fraudulent act, and thus, the part concerning each of the instant contracts, which was filed one year thereafter, is unlawful.

B. 1) A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act is filed within one year from the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). In this case, “the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” means the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation, i.e., the date the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the cause for revocation. Thus, the obligor is simply the property.