The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on evidence, the lower court acknowledged that the instant transfer contract was a biased act in which A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) transferred claims for the purpose of collateral only to the Defendant, which is a specific creditor, and at the time, A knew that it was to provide collateral only to a specific creditor in order to avoid the principle of creditor equality applied when bankruptcy proceedings commence.

Then, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff could deny the instant transfer security agreement concluded with the Defendant pursuant to Article 391 Subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act; and (b) the said transfer security agreement becomes null and void following the Plaintiff’s exercise of avoidance power; (c) the sales claim, which was the object of the transfer security agreement, return to A again; and (d) the Plaintiff, a trustee in bankruptcy, claims for payment of each of the instant deposits

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for the exercise of the avoidance power, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.