KKBC Co., Ltd.

No. 200,000

July 14, 2010

1. The contract for the transfer and takeover of bonds concluded on June 15, 2009 and the claim stated in the separate sheet No. 2 dated October 19, 2009 between the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Nonparty is revoked, respectively.

2. On October 19, 2009, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) notified the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) that the bond transfer and takeover contract was revoked.

3. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 6,620,750 won with interest of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

4. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remaining main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

In the principal suit: Mains Nos. 1 and 2 and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) 6,620,750 won with 5% interest per annum from April 20, 2010 to the delivery date of the principal suit, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 840,900 won with 5% interest per annum from December 19, 2009 to the service date of a counterclaim, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 9,774,839,087 against the Nonparty in the short-swing profit return case at the Seoul Central District Court 98Gahap114133, and rendered a favorable judgment on April 18, 200, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 25, 2003.

B. On February 5, 2009, the Nonparty was rendered a final and conclusive judgment of winning part of the claim for damages of KRW 5,000,000 against the Plaintiff in Seoul High Court 2008Na697,69703 (Joint Damages) and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the above claim (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) in the name of the Defendant Company that he/she is working as the representative director on June 15, 2009, and again notified the transfer of the above claim. On October 19, 2009, the Nonparty (hereinafter “instant Claim 2”) transferred the claim of KRW 840,900 (attached Table 2; hereinafter “instant Claim 2”) and notified the Defendant Company of the transfer.

C. The Nonparty did not have assets other than the above claims at the time of the transfer of the first and second claims in this case.

D. On April 9, 2010, the Defendant Company, based on the instant claim No. 1, received the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Seoul District Court Branch Branch 2010TT 2299, and collected KRW 6,620,750 from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation on April 20, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 8-3, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. Determination on the main claim

In cases where a debtor performs his/her obligation in excess of his/her obligation to a specific creditor, thereby reducing the joint security of other creditors, such repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act, in principle, unless the debtor in collusion with some creditors and renders repayment with the intent to prejudice other creditors, and the same applies to cases where other monetary claims are transferred in lieu of the repayment of the existing monetary obligation. In particular, whether the debtor in collusion with some other creditors and transfers the repayment or assignment of claims with the intent to prejudice other creditors exists, whether the beneficiary actually collects claims against the debtor of the beneficiary, the amount of the repayment or assignment of claims received from the debtor, the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the recognition of the debtor's ability to repay, the act of the beneficiary before and after the repayment or assignment of claims, the circumstances of the debtor and the beneficiary at the time of the repayment or transfer of claims, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62167, Jun. 15, 2006).

However, the non-party bears large amount of debt up to KRW 9,74,839,087 against the plaintiff, while the non-party was in excess of its debt due to the absence of any other property than the claims Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and the statement No. 1 and 2 of this case alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant company actually lent KRW 15,00,000 to the non-party, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the claims against the non-party of the defendant company were actually in existence. In addition, even if the non-party recognizes it, considering the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, such as the non-party being in office as the representative director of the defendant company, the repayment ability of the non-party, all the circumstances before and after the transfer of the claim, and the size and operation status of the defendant company

Each contract on the transfer and takeover of claims for the first and second claims of this case shall be cancelled as a fraudulent act, and the defendant, as a result, shall directly compensate for the above first claims of which collection has been completed, the plaintiff shall be obligated to pay the plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 6,620,750 and the damages for delay under the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive (the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay under the Civil Act and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date of collection, but the obligation to compensate for the value arises only when the judgment ordering the cancellation of the fraudulent act becomes final and conclusive, and the interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings does not apply pursuant to the proviso of Article 3 (1) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da3583, Jun. 24, 2002). As for the second claims, the defendant shall be obligated to notify the plaintiff who is the debtor of the claim of this case

B. Determination on the counterclaim

Although the defendant asserts that the transferee of the second claim of this case should obtain the performance of its obligation from the plaintiff, as seen above, the above second claim transfer and takeover contract of this case was revoked as a fraudulent act, and the revocation of the fraudulent act has retroactive effect between the parties, so the defendant's assertion on the premise that the defendant is the transferee of the above claim of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the principal lawsuit is dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is groundless.

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Jeong-Gyeong

1) Although the Defendant asserts that it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to seek a direct payment of money, the revocation obligee may directly demand the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser to pay money or movable property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da50061, Nov. 28, 2003). The argument is without merit.