Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 5, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The sales contract concluded on August 27, 2008 between the non-party 1 and the defendant with respect to the fishery permit right stated in the attached Table 2 List No. 1 shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of fishery permit right on October 27, 2008 with respect to the fishery permit right listed in attached Table No. 2 List No. 1 to the plaintiff

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 4-1, evidence 4-2, evidence 5 through 8, evidence 1 through 10, evidence 9-1 through 10, Eul evidence 1, 2, evidence 3-1, 4-1 through 7, Eul evidence 4-1 through 5-3, evidence 9-1 through 5, evidence 9-1 through 5, testimony of non-party 1, and testimony of non-party 1:

A. On January 1, 2007, the Plaintiff is the creditor of Nonparty 1 who leased KRW 12,470,000 to Nonparty 1 on December 20, 2007. In order to secure the above loan obligation, Nonparty 1 entered into a security agreement to transfer all the catches captured by Nonparty 1 to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2007, a fishing vessel listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “○○”, while ○○ was added with the fishery permit right as listed in attached Table 2(1)).

B. Nonparty 1, through Nonparty 3, 4, and 6, at the end of August 2008, sold to the Defendant the right to permit fishery for ○○○ upon the introduction of Nonparty 3, via Nonparty 3, 4, and 6 (hereinafter the instant sales contract), and received KRW 100 million out of the purchase price from the Defendant (of which, KRW 70 million was owned by the Defendant, decided to pay in kind KRW 93,00,00 to KRW 100,000 to KRW 7.93,00,000,000 to KRW 100,000,000,000 to KRW 7.93,00,000 to KRW 3,00,000,000 to KRW 1,00,000 to KRW 3,00,000,000 to KRW 1,00

C. On August 26, 2008, the Defendant purchased from Nonparty 4 the 19 tons of other ships, the 145 million won of knife of knife from Nonparty 4, and increased the 20 tons of knife to the knife fishing vessel as indicated in the attached Table 1 List 1 List 2, and made registration of preservation of ownership on September 25, 2008 in the name of Nonparty 1 in order to move the knife fishing permit to knife

D. After that, on October 6, 2008, Nonparty 6, on behalf of Nonparty 1, changed the name of the fishing vessel crew member of knife from knife to her gate (the name of the fishing vessel changed to her name as the above) on his behalf, and at the same time, obtained a fishery permit with the content that the designated fishing vessel of ○○ho fishery permit is changed to her name by her gate, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 20, 208 with respect to the above knife on behalf of Nonparty 6.

E. Accordingly, on October 23, 2008, the Defendant changed the name of the owner of the fishing vessel crew in △△ Family into his own account, and obtained a fishery permit from the Do governor on October 27, 2008, with the same content as that of the attached Table 2(2).

2. Determination as to the cause of action

The transfer of the fishery permit right to the Plaintiff by transfer of ○○ho Lake to the Defendant after Nonparty 1 transferred the fishery permit right to the Defendant in excess of its debt to the Defendant is an act of reducing the Plaintiff’s joint security regardless of whether the transfer procedure is established under the substantive law (it is difficult to view the fishery permit right as a property right under the substantive law, or as it is traded as a property right to determine the property value of the fishing vessel, so the proprietary value of ○○○, which has lost the fishery permit right, should not be significantly reduced). Thus, it is presumed that the Defendant, a beneficiary, was aware of this. Thus, the transfer contract concluded at the end of August 2008 between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant, as a restoration to its original state, is obliged to return to Nonparty 1 the Plaintiff’s right to fishery permit, which was the owner of ○○hoho Lakeho Lake, which was the fishery permit permit right to the Plaintiff, to the effect that the Plaintiff did not request the change of the status of the fishery permit right to the Defendant 1’s title.

3. Judgment on the defense

Since the Defendant, as a bona fide witness, did not know that purchasing the right to fish for ○○○○○ was prejudicial to the Plaintiff’s act of infringing the Plaintiff’s fishery permit, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the testimony of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, the Defendant first met at the time of the instant sales contract. The above sales contract was concluded by Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, and the procedure of transferring the right to fish for ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was handled on behalf of Nonparty 1. The Defendant received a loan from Nonparty 1 as collateral, and transferred the above vessel to Nonparty 1 or Nonparty 3 at the time of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales contract. However, the Defendant did not have the right to purchase the vessel at the latest KRW 98,000,000.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

【Omission of Display of Ships】

Judge Choi Byung-su (Presiding Judge)