1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the former bank (hereinafter “former bank”) at KRW 45,000,000 with respect to the loan obligation received from the former bank (hereinafter “former bank”). On June 11, 2013, B obtained a loan by setting the amount of KRW 50,000,000 per annum from the former bank as the interest rate of KRW 1.5% per annum and the due date of repayment on May 19, 2017.

B. B on June 14, 2013, sold the instant real estate to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) on June 18, 2013 with respect to the instant real estate under the former District Court No. 31966, Jun. 18, 2013.

C. As the Plaintiff did not perform the above loan obligation, on April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff subrogated the principal amount of KRW 45,049,931 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 45,00,000,000) to the previous bank (i.e., the interest amount of KRW 49,931). As of April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim amount for indemnity against B was KRW 45,387,839 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 44,985,831, KRW 401,987, KRW 21).

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6 (including paper numbers), the result of the order of the court of first instance to submit financial transaction information to Jeonbuk bank, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff has a claim for indemnity against B, and there was a credit guarantee contract, which serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim for indemnity at the time of the instant sales contract, and there was a high probability that the claim for indemnity under the credit guarantee contract will be established in the near future in light of the property or financial status of B, and thus, there is a claim for revocation of fraudulent act.

Furthermore, selling the real estate of this case, which is the only property B, constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is presumed that B's intention and the defendant's bad faith is presumed.

Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall restore to its original state.