1. The judgment of the first instance, including a claim that has been reduced and exchanged in this court, is as follows.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. CFF entered into two credit guarantee agreements with the Plaintiff, and each credit guarantee agreement issued by the Plaintiff was secured by a corporate bank and received KRW 100 million from the Korea Agriculture and Food Trade Corporation and KRW 300 million from the Korea Agriculture and Food Trade Corporation, and B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of CFF under the respective credit guarantee agreements.

C Agricultural Association Co., Ltd. had a credit guarantee accident since November 15, 2016 due to overdue repayment of loans. The Plaintiff paid 86,593,868 won to a corporate bank on February 28, 2017, and 257,615,472 won to the Korea Agriculture and Fisheries Corporation.

B. B concluded a sales contract with the Defendant, the mother on June 2, 2016, on an apartment as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of the Daejeon District Court Decision No. 15325 on June 3, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Daejeon District Court: (a) received on November 3, 2008, No. 33243 on the instant apartment as to the instant apartment, which was established by the collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 32.5 million, the debtor B, and the Korean bank for the mortgagee Co., Ltd.; and (b) at the time, the secured debt amount was KRW 19,710,040, but the instant collateral security was revoked after the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, the result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to Korean banks, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. Although it is required that the claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has, in principle, arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act, the claim has already been established at the time of such fraudulent act, and the claim has already been established in the near future, based on such legal relationship.