1. The part concerning the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act among the lawsuits in this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties and the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods are corporations that engage in the sales of steel products and products related thereto within the Jinsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Readjustment Zone, and Taedam Construction Co., Ltd. entered into a steel supply agreement with the Plaintiff.

Under the joint and several guarantee of E, F, and B, the Plaintiff supplied steel bars and steel materials to Kumam Construction Co., Ltd. from May 2012 to September 2013, and the goods price claim against Kumam Construction Co., Ltd. is KRW 156,864,850 in total.

B. On March 25, 2013, B and B borrowed KRW 134,00,000 to the Defendant on the due date as of June 25, 2013. On October 8, 2013, B and the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) with the Defendant as to the size of 330 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, Ulsan District Court received KRW 96829 on the same day, the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000 as of the maximum debt amount of KRW 96829.

C. On November 11, 2013, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate as a mortgagee and rendered a judgment of voluntary auction to the Ulsan District CourtD on November 12, 2013. 2) The instant real estate was awarded in KRW 205,00,00 for G on April 18, 2014. The auction court distributed KRW 201,239,001, which is the date of distribution, the amount calculated by deducting the execution cost from the sum of the sale price and the interest on the sales price on May 29, 2014. (1) The Defendant distributed KRW 75,05,989, and KRW 126,183,012 to the Defendant, the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, and the Plaintiff excluded the distribution from each distribution.

The plaintiff is present on May 29, 2014 on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the full amount of the defendant's dividends.