1. The reservation entered into on August 20, 2015 with respect to real estate stated in the separate sheet between the defendant and C shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On January 17, 2011, when the Plaintiff was making a monetary transaction with the Plaintiff, D prepared a loan certificate with the Plaintiff’s loan amounting to KRW 300 million up to the time until June 30, 201, and affixed the said loan certificate on behalf of the Plaintiff C on the joint guarantor column of the said loan certificate. (2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D and C seeking payment of the said loan amounting to KRW 150 million as the Plaintiff did not receive the above loan amounting to KRW 150 million. (3) On December 8, 2015, the said court sentenced D and C to the judgment that “D jointly and severally pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom”.

In this regard, D and C appealed (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na1641), but on September 22, 2016, the appeal was dismissed, and the appeal was not filed, and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive.

B. On August 20, 2015, when the lawsuit of the first instance court was in progress, C entered into a trade reservation (hereinafter “instant trade reservation”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and on September 17, 2015, upon which September 17, 2015, C completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”).

C. C was in excess of obligations because active property at the time of the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant products did not reach a small property.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim against C constitutes a preserved claim to revoke the instant reservation as a fraudulent act, and C’s conclusion of the instant reservation with the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act knowing that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor, and the Defendant’s bad faith, a beneficiary, is presumed. 2) On the other hand, the Defendant is merely a beneficiary of C.