1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 22, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased the land and buildings B (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Ansan-si from A, and on December 31, 2008, acquired ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on the instant real estate.

B. After that, on May 21, 2009, Mamoen Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Sejong”) filed a lawsuit against A as the cause of a claim for the refund of lease deposit and loan claims, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that the sale of the instant real estate, which is the only property owned by A as the preserved bond, constitutes a fraudulent act, on the ground that the sale of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, which is the only property owned by A as the preserved bond, constitutes a fraudulent act.

C. In addition, on May 21, 2009, in order to preserve the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the above fraudulent act lawsuit, the defendant Sejong filed an application for provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal of the instant real estate as the Suwon District Court Annwon Branch 2009Kadan100322 on May 21, 2009 and completed the provisional disposition registration on June 8, 2009, and completed the provisional disposition registration on June 10, 2009.

(hereinafter "Provisional Disposition of this case") D.

In the process, in order to secure the plaintiff's damage caused by the provisional disposition of this case, the defendant Sejong submitted the deposit guarantee insurance policy (the insurance amount of KRW 174 million) issued by the defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant insurance company") to the court of the above provisional disposition application.

E. However, on April 29, 2010, the first instance court of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the said fraudulent act against the Plaintiff by Defendant Sejong on the ground that “The amount of secured claim of the right to collateral established on the instant real estate exceeds the value of the instant real estate since the said secured claim exceeds the value of the instant real estate at the time the purchase and sale promise and sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and A,” and that the said sales contract does not constitute a fraudulent act.