1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The declaration of bankruptcy against A was filed on September 22, 2018 while the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City operated the "D" for a personal business entity that produces recyclable materials by recycling plastics.

A was declared bankrupt on January 24, 2019 by the Incheon District Court 2018Hadan1155, and the plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

A The Defendant offered security to the Defendant has operated the “E”, which is a recycling company, and has supplied the raw materials for recycled products to D.

A and the Defendant, around February 5, 2018, concluded a contract to establish a security for transfer with respect to movable property recorded in the attached list owned by A for security of KRW 241,930,520, which is to be borne by A against the Defendant. A and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of a contract to pay a debt with collateral security (Evidence 0121, 2018) with the same content on February 12, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant security”). 【The grounds for recognition” did not have any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 10, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the overall purport of the pleadings, although the financial status of the Plaintiff was extremely deteriorated, the Plaintiff provided the instant security only to the Defendant among

Therefore, the instant security constitutes a biased act that undermines equal distribution among bankruptcy creditors, and is presumed to be aimed at avoiding the principle of equality of creditors applied when the future bankruptcy procedure commences. Therefore, the instant security ought to be denied pursuant to Article 391 Subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”).

Defendant A provided the instant security to continue the business, and at the time, it was impossible to anticipate the fact that he would go bankrupt, so there was no intention to do so.

In addition, there was no perception that the defendant would prejudice bankruptcy creditors at the time of receiving the security of this case.

Judgment

Relevant legal principles are subject to avoidance under Article 391, Paragraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.