1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff’s claim against B (1) Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) acquired the “first-time non-guaranteed private equity bond” worth KRW 2 billion issued by C (hereinafter “instant bonds”) under the joint and several liability of B, the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and paid KRW 2 billion to C.

(2) On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the instant bonds from the modern securities.

(3) On February 19, 2014, C lost the benefit of the time limit for the instant bonds due to the party branch roads.

(4) On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against C and B (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 tea123647), and on May 30, 2014, the said payment order became final and conclusive on the ground that “C and B jointly paid to the Plaintiff KRW 2,02,867,071 and delay damages for KRW 2,018,847,67,671.”

B. B and the Defendant’s sales contract: (a) on October 17, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the Defendant on the grounds of sale on October 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by him/her (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, B, including the instant real estate in amounting to KRW 122,810,00,000 at the time of the instant sales contract, was holding active property (five real estate) equivalent to KRW 552,810,000 for the value of the instant real estate. At the time of the instant sales contract, B, including the principal of the instant bonds with KRW 2 billion, and the obligation to return the lease deposit amount with KRW 60,000 for the instant real estate, was bearing a total amount of KRW 5,565,53,000 for the instant real estate as well

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 10, the result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to the Korea Federation of Banks, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the sales contract of this case concluded by B in excess of his/her debt constitutes a fraudulent act, and the sales contract of this case is an exercise of the obligee's right of revocation.