1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 13, 2009 and November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”). The representative director C of B jointly and severally guaranteed this, and the Plaintiff received a loan from the Daegu Bank and the New Bank as collateral.

According to the instant guarantee agreement, when the Plaintiff fulfilled the guaranteed obligation, B and C shall pay the amount of the guaranteed obligation and damages for delay.

B. B did not pay each of the above principal and interest of the loan, and the Plaintiff paid 272,462,761 won to the new bank on June 2, 2017, and 739,623,002 won to the Daegu Bank on June 15 of the same year.

C. On February 7, 2017, B entered into a sales contract to sell each of the real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and C entered into a sales contract to sell each of the real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 3 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate following the following day.

B and C were in excess of their obligations at the time of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (if there are serial numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Korea Credit Information Institute, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B and C sold each of the instant real estate even though they were aware that they prejudicial to the rights of creditors, such as the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to have been malicious. The instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act and thus should be revoked, and it is impossible to restore the original state to its original state, so the Defendant is obliged to pay

B. The defendant's assertion did not know B and C before the sales contract of this case, and through a licensed real estate agent, this case.