1. The sales contract concluded on February 27, 2018 between the defendant and D with respect to attached real estate shall be revoked.

2...

Basic Facts

On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the E-E to sell the Plaintiff’s F-si factory site of KRW 8578m2,80,000 to KRW 4,102,80.

On February 16, 2016, the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the plaintiff enter into a quasi-loan agreement to change the balance to the loan, as the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not pay the balance of 870,000,000 won.

The maturity date was until May 16, 2016, and the interest rate was 5% per annum (15%).

At the time of the conclusion of the quasi-loan loan agreement, D, the representative director of the LOE, has jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the LOE.

D Legal act D between D and the defendant was owned on November 29, 2013 by purchasing and selling attached real estate.

D On February 27, 2018, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for selling attached real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed as of February 27, 2018 by the Daejeon District Court Sejong District Court Sejong District Court No. 13449 on the attached real estate on the same day.

D’s property status around February 27, 2018, there was a building of 661 square meters and its ground before Daejeon Daejeon G, Seo-gu, Daejeon. On January 10, 2017, the right to collateral security was established in the future of HFF, the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,400,000, and on May 26, 2017, the creditor Credit Guarantee Fund, the claimed amount of KRW 15,750,730, and the provisional attachment registration of KRW 15,750,730 was completed. On the other hand, on the other hand, the debt amount against the Plaintiff was more than KRW 870,00,000, as seen earlier.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5-2, fact-finding on the I Office of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, according to the fact-finding based on the whole purport of the pleading, D sold real estate indicated in the attachment to the defendant in excess of the obligation, thereby reducing general security and causing the plaintiff as a general creditor. In this case, D's general security.