1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 4, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement between B and B with the guaranteed principal of KRW 42,500,000, and the guarantee period from August 4, 2010 to July 31, 2015.

In addition, the Plaintiff issued to B a credit guarantee certificate for the above amount pursuant to the above credit guarantee agreement, and B obtained a loan of KRW 50,000,000 from the Korea Standards Bank as collateral on August 6, 2010.

B. B was operating a C agency, and on November 24, 2014, there was a guarantee accident closed by the said agency, and on November 28, 2014, the said bank notified the Plaintiff of the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident due to the loss of time limit.

C. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 43,013,387 in total with the principal and interest of the loan obligations under the credit guarantee agreement, and recovered KRW 167,738 from B on the same day.

On the other hand, on August 25, 2014, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 120,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the instant real estate as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On October 22, 2014, B completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the said sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in a claim for indemnity equivalent to KRW 42,845,649 against B (= KRW 43,013,387 - KRW 167,738). Since B sold the instant real estate, which is the only property under insolvent, to the Defendant, the instant sales contract ought to be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act.

In addition, since the defendant is a malicious beneficiary, and the right to collateral security established on the real estate of this case was cancelled after the aforementioned fraudulent act, 29,929,897 won as compensation for value = 132,50,000 won at the market price at the time of the closing of argument of this case - the right to collateral security cancelled as compensation for value.