1. In accordance with the amendment of the purport of the claim by this court, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows:

Defendant B.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. According to the above facts, prior to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement between the Defendant and B, the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal and interest of this case against B was already established, and thus, the instant claim for the principal and interest of this case is subject to the revocation of fraudulent act.

B. According to the above facts, B’s establishment of the right to revoke a fraudulent act is based on the following facts: (a) at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, active property was KRW 595,010,426 through KRW 705,010,426; (b) on the other hand, negative property is KRW 1,169,701,60; (c) it is recognized that the passive property was in a state of insolvency exceeding active property; and (d) Category B through Class B’s evidence (including number number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(2) The debtor's act of setting up a right of lease under the above provision on the only house owned by the debtor in excess of the obligation is an act of offering collateral in excess of the obligation, which causes a decrease in the debtor's whole property, and therefore, the act of setting up the right of lease is subject to revocation of fraudulent act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da50771, May 13, 2005). Accordingly, the burden of proving that a fraudulent act is a fraudulent act exists in the beneficiary, i.e., the burden of proving that a fraudulent act is a fraudulent act. In such a case, evidence that a beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act is objectively and objectively acceptable.