beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C, which operated a D gas station on October 10, 2008, entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff and the guaranteed principal of KRW 255 million and the term of guarantee until October 9, 2009 (amended by October 4, 2013), and on October 14, 2008, a new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement.
(2) On May 11, 2013, C was granted a loan of KRW 300 million. (2) A incurred a credit guarantee accident due to delinquency in principal, and the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 236,728,492 to a new bank on June 24, 2013.
3) The Plaintiff recovered KRW 2,164,590 from C to appropriate the subrogated principal for the subrogated principal. The balance of the subrogated principal was KRW 234,563,902, and the amount of finalized damages was KRW 711,000. (b) C entered into a sales contract with Defendant B on December 1, 2012 with regard to real estate stated in the attached Table 2, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said real estate to Defendant B on December 26, 2012.
2) On June 3, 2013, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”)
E, the representative director of E, each real estate and machinery, equipment, etc. specified in attached Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate, etc. listed in attached Form 1”).
2) As to the sales contract with a purchase price of KRW 55 million (hereinafter “instant secondary sales contract”)
(A) On June 7, 2013, Defendant A entered into a contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the above real estate on June 7, 2013. [Based on recognition] The fact that there is no dispute over a part of the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8 through 10, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including the provisional number, and the purport of the whole entries and arguments
2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the sales contract of this case between C and Defendant B and the second sales contract of this case between C and Defendant A should be revoked, respectively, as a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and compensation for its restoration to its original state.