The lease contract concluded on December 10, 2015 between the defendant and D shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff granted a loan of KRW 60,000,000 to D, and registered the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 72,00,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with D to lease the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and filed a move-in report on December 15, 2015.

C. On December 19, 2017, there was a decision to commence the auction on the instant real estate upon the Plaintiff’s request (Yancheon District Court Branch Branch E). In the above auction procedure, the distribution schedule was prepared to receive KRW 40,482,056 out of the amount of claim as the third-class mortgagee of the amount of claim 69,604,95 among the amount of claim 69,604,95.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the most lessee, or the instant lease agreement is revoked as a fraudulent act. Therefore, the amount of KRW 27,000,000 against the Defendant in the above distribution schedule should be revised to KRW 0,00, and KRW 40,482,056 against the Plaintiff should be revised to KRW 67,482,056.

3. Determination as to the cause of the claim regarding the fraudulent act

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for loans against D may be a preserved claim in a fraudulent act. If the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against D added to the entries in the evidence No. 9, F’s response to the order to submit financial transaction information as of May 1, 2020, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the court’s inquiry into the court administration office of this case, D may recognize the fact that its liabilities exceed two billion won at the time of the instant lease agreement.

In regard to this, the defendant submitted the entire certificate of No. 23, and argued that D's active property existed, and D's insolvency was not insolvent. However, since the owner of the above real estate is not D, D's responsible property can not be considered as D's property.