1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. For the purpose of distributing steel products, the Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing steel products and non-ferrous metal products, and D (hereinafter “D”) is a corporation established for the purpose of retailing steel products.

B. The Plaintiff received a promissory note issued from September 3, 2013 to D and its intra-company director A with respect to the unpaid amount of goods accrued from the supply of steel products, etc. to August 201, and from August 2013, 2013.

C. On August 30, 2013, A entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer KRW 350,000,000 to the Defendant for the claim for the return of the lease deposit stated in the purport of the claim that A had held against B (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of claims”). On September 14, 2013, A notified the transfer of claims to B, and the notification reached September 16, 2013.

B on September 30, 2013, the Seoul Southern District Court deposited the deposit amount of KRW 350,611,620 as the depositee A or the defendant at the Seoul Southern District Court No. 4729 in 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 10 evidence (including the number of each kind of evidence), the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The gist of the parties' assertion is that the defendant, the representative director of D, who is the creditor of the purchase price of goods against D, concluded the instant transfer contract in collusion with A for the purpose of repayment prior to other creditors despite being aware that D's excess of debt was known, and thus, the instant transfer contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and accordingly, sought confirmation that B's claim for withdrawal of the purchase price of the deposited money is sought against A.

In this regard, the defendant cannot be deemed to have established the transfer of the claim against D and A for promissory notes that the plaintiff asserts as the preserved claim, and the transfer of the claim of this case shall not be deemed to have been made before the fraudulent act.