1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da130688, that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 30,500,770 won and the amount of KRW 29,910,750 from June 6, 2014 to June 26, 2014, 15% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The judgment was finalized on September 30, 2014.

B. B issued a promissory note as indicated in Section 1.1 of the purport of the claim on August 13, 2014 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant, the father, and on the same day, the notary public entrusted a law firm’s attorney-at-law in charge of notarial acts with the preparation of a notarial deed to the effect that “if the payment of the said promissory note is delayed, even if there is no objection thereto” was immediately enforced, the said notarial deed was drafted as to the said promissory note under Section 324 of the said law firm’s certificate.

C. On September 4, 2014, the Defendant issued a ruling on the seizure and assignment order of claims under the Jeonju District Court 2014TT No. 2014TT with the title of execution with respect to the monthly wage, etc. against the school juristic person C as the title of execution of the said promissory note.

2. Determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. On August 13, 2014, a insolvent Party B, which is the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, issued the Promissory Notes in this case to the Defendant, and immediately made a notarial deed, and on September 4, 2014, the Defendant received on September 4, 2014, a series of orders for seizure and assignment of the monthly wage claim, which is the active property of B with the said notarial deed as the title of execution, is nothing more than that of transferring the monthly wage claim of the school foundation B to the Defendant, the specified obligee.

As a result, as the excess of B's liabilities deepen, B's issuance of promissory notes becomes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of B including the Plaintiff, and B was aware that it would prejudice B's creditors, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed in light of the personal relationship between B and the defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances delineated below: