The sales contract concluded on July 26, 2019 between the defendant and C shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) as a notary public who supplied C with clothing, received KRW 35,000,000,000 each of the outstanding goods amounting to KRW 17,50,000 from December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014; and (b) as a notary public who receives interest at the rate of 12% per annum from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, drafted a certificate of cash consumption and lending contract (hereinafter “certificate of this case”).

B. On July 29, 2019, C sold at KRW 30,000,00 of the purchase price (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) to the Defendant, who is a woman of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) that he/she owned on July 29, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). As to the instant real estate, the Gi Government District Court completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “registration of transfer of ownership”) on July 29, 2019, as the receipt of the instant sales contract on July 29, 2019.

(c)

At the time of the instant sales contract, C was in excess of its obligation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found as above, C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delayed damages arising from KRW 35,00,000 according to the instant fair deed, and the interest or delayed damages arising therefrom from January 1, 2014. At the time of the instant sales contract, C had the due date for the Plaintiff’s monetary claim against the Plaintiff C, and thus, the said monetary claim is the preserved claim of the obligee’s right to revoke, barring special circumstances.

In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) the monetary claim stated in the instant fair deed is a claim for the price of goods arising from the Plaintiff’s supply of goods in violation of the Trademark Act to C; and (b) the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay it; (c) thus, the instant fair deed was prepared by threatening C. Therefore, there is no underlying claim.