It is difficult to deem that the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract causes insolvency.

At the time of filing the instant lawsuit, active assets were calculated as officially announced values and were in excess of liabilities. However, during the trial process, active assets are proved to increase due to appraisal and assessment and other claims are proved to have been different, and thus, they do not constitute a fraudulent act.

Article 86-2 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Gohap 51721 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

1. HoA 2. HoB 3. HoCC

March 7, 2014

April 4, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendants and Nonparty DoD cancel all their respective mortgage agreement concluded on November 8, 2010 with respect to the portion of Hodo among OO-Gu OO-dong OO-dong 458-2, 1,580 square meters among O-si O-dong O-dong 458-2, and 1,580 square meters between the Defendants and Nonparty DoD. As the Defendants accepted the above Hodo shares, they transfer the right to claim payment of OOB out of the compensation claims to be received from Nonparty E, HoF, and notify Nonparty 1 of the assignment of claims.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On December 23, 2009, HoD transferred the ownership of OO-dong OO-dong 310-11 and 2-14 of the same 310-14 land to OOOO and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of H on February 5, 2010.

B. On the other hand, Hodd Co., Ltd. owned 1/5 shares of the Defendants and heading and heading Eul-II, who are the types of the Defendants, and the JJ (hereinafter referred to as the "JJ") with each of the 1/5 shares of each of the 1/459-1 land (hereinafter referred to as "each of the land in this case" and when only part of them is indicated, hereinafter referred to as "each of the land in this case"), set up a collateral security agreement for the sum of maximum debt amounts to OOO, OOOOOO, OOOOOO, and Kim L with the maximum debt amount of OOOOOOOOO, 457, 458-1, 459, and 459-1 at OO, and released the said 30-OD's share of each of the above 20-OD's share of each of the above 30-OK's share of each of the instant land in the auction procedure (Seoul District Court).

"Around October 18, 2010, the Defendants were notified of non-permission to the effect that the land of this case is the land within the land transaction permission zone, and that no land transaction permission cannot be granted because there is an illegal building on the land." From around 18, 2010, the Defendants purchased only HS-D shares out of the remaining land except the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case 458-2 and 3 parcels") OO-2 (the appraisal value OO-O-O, its down payment O-O-O-O-O-O's share already paid to this K-O-2) from around 10, 201 to 20.O-O-O-J shares out of the 458-2 land (hereinafter referred to as "share shares of this case"), and the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer between 10O-D and 2O-JD shares out of each of the above changes.

G. On December 1, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) separately decided and notified HoD on December 1, 201, KRW OOO of capital gains tax following the transfer of above OOdong 310-11; and (b) KRW OOO of capital gains tax following the transfer of HoD’s shares among the land outside 457 and three parcels of land of this case on February 1, 2012; (c) however, the amount of arrears as of November 8, 2010 as of November 8, 2010 due to the said payment of capital gains tax was the total amount of KRW OO.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8 (if available, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and the result of this court's submission of financial transaction information to JJ, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since HoD, as to the instant shares, was placed in excess of its obligation by establishing and delivering the instant collateral security to the Defendants, the instant contract to establish the collateral security between HoD and the Defendants constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the Defendants are obliged to restore the said shares to its original state accordingly.

B. Determination

(1) In a case where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the subject matter of the act is the weight of the debtor’s entire responsible property in the context of the debtor’s property; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the justification and means of economic purpose of the juristic act; (d) the reasonableness of the pertinent act, which is the means of realization; (e) the reasonableness of the pertinent act; (e) whether the debtor and the beneficiary’s collusion; and (e) the degree of perception of the parties to the risks of insufficient common security, such as the existence of the debtor’s and the beneficiary’s collusion, whether the act ultimately constitutes an act detrimental to general creditors

(2) As to the insolvency of HoD, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser KimM, it was acknowledged that on November 8, 2010, HoD owned the instant shares of an amount equivalent to O-O's KRW 65-7, 65-8, 000, 65-8, 700, 65-7, 700, 65-8, 700, 757, 700, 700, 700, 3000 won and 700,000 won and 700,000 won and 700,000 won and 457,000 won and 7,000 won and 7,000 won and 00,000 won and 7,000 won and 30,000 won and 00,000 won and 00,000 won and 3,000.

According to the above facts, Hodds actually owned the property equivalent to the KRW OO (=OOOO + OOOOwon) at the time of November 8, 2010 (i.e., when signing the instant mortgage agreement, it is difficult to view that Hods were in insolvent at the time of signing the instant mortgage agreement, or that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit to examine the remainder.

3. Conclusion

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