1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 2010, C entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff with the amount guaranteed as KRW 18 million (hereinafter the instant credit guarantee agreement), and C’s wife B was jointly and severally guaranteed.

C was granted a loan of KRW 16 million from the Nonghyup Bank as security a credit guarantee certificate issued pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement of this case.

C caused a credit guarantee accident on August 5, 2013, and the Plaintiff subrogated 16,195,453 won to the Nonghyup Bank on December 5, 2013 in accordance with the instant credit guarantee agreement.

As of March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s indemnity claim against C and B under the credit guarantee agreement of this case or the joint and several liability claim against C and B is KRW 20,182,195 (amounting to KRW 16,195,453 + 3,986,742).

B. On September 4, 2012, B entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant as to the real estate indicated in the separate list owned by the Defendant (hereinafter the instant real estate), with the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million, C, the debtor, and the mortgagee as the Defendant (hereinafter the “mortgage agreement”). On the same day, B completed a mortgage creation agreement (hereinafter the “mortgage creation”) based on which the Defendant had established a neighboring mortgage registration (hereinafter the “mortgage”).

C. The Defendant voluntarily filed an application for auction on the instant real estate based on the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case.

The Ulsan District Court cited this on July 11, 2014 and rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction, and the defendant received dividends of KRW 78,986,863 in the auction procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-9 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the mortgage contract of this case should be revoked within the scope of KRW 20,182,195 of the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety claim as to B, and the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 20,182,195 out of the dividend to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The beneficiary is presumed to be the bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act 1, and is not the beneficiary.