1.(a)

Attached Form

As to each movable described in the list, it was concluded on December 7, 2017 between the defendant and C Company.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)

(2) From January 4, 2017 to November 29, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied steel products equivalent to the sum of KRW 368,551,548 from the Plaintiff, but did not pay KRW 166,898,394 among them. (2) On December 7, 2017, C entered into a payment contract in kind (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant, and transferred each movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

3) At the time C requested an extension of the due date of a promissory note issued by C to the Defendant, but the Defendant refused such extension, and the instant movable property, the sole property of C in excess of the obligation (the Defendant was supplied by himself and owned by himself), but cannot be viewed as such.

A) B was taken over as a substitute payment. The Promissory Notes issued by C to the Defendant was disposed of as the first default on December 1, 2017, and was disposed of as the last default on December 13, 2017.

B. According to the above facts, the instant agreement that C in excess of its obligation transferred the instant movable property to the Defendant, one of its creditors, as payment in kind, to the Defendant, as the sole property of the obligee, constitutes a fraudulent act as it harms the Plaintiff, who was another obligee, and as such, C’s intent to commit a fraudulent act. Furthermore, the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed presumed. Thus, the instant agreement should be revoked, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant movable property to the Plaintiff as restitution.

2. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's primary claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.