1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to deposit claims listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and A, the defendant and the stock company:

1. Basic facts

A. On April 21, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”). On April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50 million from the National Bank as collateral.

B. On June 201, A entered into the instant pledge agreement with the Defendant as to the instant deposit claim of KRW 20 million with the Defendant and obtained the consent of the National Bank, the deposit obligor, in order to guarantee liability for damages to the Defendant, which may arise in the future pursuant to the said business entrustment agreement without any specific active property on June 26, 2013, while arranging the Defendant’s loan products and making transactions with the Defendant.

C. On August 27, 2013, the Defendant terminated a business consignment agreement with A on the ground of the decline in performance, and on September 25, 2013, the Defendant paid the fees for the portion of August 2013 to A.

The Plaintiff paid 50,640,219 won to the National Bank on October 30, 2013 according to the Credit Guarantee Agreement as the Plaintiff delayed payment of interest on the above loan obligation from August 29, 2013.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 7 (including partial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. At the time of the pledge agreement of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was not actually created, but there was a credit guarantee agreement that forms the basis thereof was concluded. From August 29, 2013 to August 29, 2013, there was a high probability for A to establish a claim for indemnity in the near future because financial circumstances have deteriorated, such as delinquency in interest on loans to a national bank. In fact, the Plaintiff paid insurance money to the national bank on October 30, 2013 and the right to indemnity against A has actually occurred, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity becomes a preserved claim in the lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act.

B. (i) A is the instant case.