1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract with C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for D boundary stone and braille block packaging works, etc., and performed the said construction from July 21, 201 to November of the same year.

B. On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an order for payment with the Daegu District Court Branch 2012 tea 4302 to seek payment for the said construction works, and the payment order was issued to the Plaintiff on November 29, 2012, stating that “Non-Party Company shall pay to the Plaintiff 17 million won and the amount equivalent to 86,580 won per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of full payment.” The above payment order was finalized on December 21, 2012.

C. On August 10, 2012, the non-party company transferred the bonds listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant bonds”) to the Defendant, and notified it to Shee Construction Co., Ltd., and around that time, the said notification reached Shee Construction Co., Ltd.

On September 25, 2012, Shee Construction Co., Ltd. paid KRW 130 million to the Defendant the above assigned claim amount.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 8 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The transfer of the instant claim by the non-party company, which was in excess of the Plaintiff’s assertion, to the Defendant, which was merely one of the obligees, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the assignment of the instant claim should be revoked. Since the Defendant was unable to return the original claim upon repayment of the instant claim, the Defendant shall pay KRW 17 million to the Plaintiff for the return of value.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the non-party company was not in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant assignment contract, and the Defendant was merely transferred the instant claim to the non-party company for repayment of the claim held against the non-party company. As such, the instant assignment contract is a fraudulent act.