The sales contract concluded on December 27, 2017 between the Defendant and B with respect to the 2159 square meters in Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun.

On February 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee contract with B to provide credit guarantee for its credit obligations (Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2). The Plaintiff paid KRW 16,273,450 to the said bank on October 16, 2017 due to B’s failure to pay the above loan obligations.

(Evidence A 3) Accordingly, the plaintiff has a claim equivalent to the above repayment amount, etc. against B in accordance with the above credit guarantee contract.

The Defendant, on May 4, 2017, lent KRW 5,00,000,00 to Dong Jae-in and KRW 10,000,00 on August 30, 2017, and B, on August 30, 2017, agreed on August 30, 2017, in the event that the said money is not repaid by December 27, 2017, the Defendant agreed to transfer the ownership of the land specified in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

(No. 4-1, 2, and 5-2 (No. 4-1, 2, and 5-2). B was unable to eventually repay the money borrowed from the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on January 8, 2018 due to the purchase and sale of the instant land on December 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(A) No. 6, and B (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”). Since the ownership is not transferred on the basis of the said promise for payment in substitutes, but on the ground of a separate sales contract, the ownership is transferred on the basis of a separate sales contract. As such, whether the fraudulent act of the preserved claim is established and whether the act of causing the transfer of ownership should be determined based

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da32133 Decided April 25, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73138, 73145 Decided July 26, 2002). B had no particular property other than the instant land and E vehicles (Evidence A7), and filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Jeonju District Court (2017Da13196 Decided July 6, 2017, the previous contract for the instant sales.

Judgment

If so, B had already been in excess of the obligation before the sales contract of this case, and this is the only property in fact.