1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s conclusion of a credit guarantee contract and joint and several sureties 1) The Plaintiff signed a credit guarantee contract and the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties on February 7, 2013 (hereinafter “C”).

By February 6, 2014 (up to February 5, 2016) the coverage amount of KRW 2550 million, the guarantee period of KRW 250 million, and the period of guarantee was changed to February 5, 2016.

(i) a credit guarantee contract (hereinafter referred to as the “credit guarantee contract of this case”) set forth.

A) Around that time, C concluded a loan with the Bank as security at KRW 300 million (hereinafter “instant loan”).

2) At the time of entering into the instant credit guarantee agreement, C’s representative director (“C”) jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to be borne by C to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant credit guarantee agreement.

B. On April 3, 2015, B entered into a mortgage contract (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”) with the Defendant with respect to the instant apartment that is one’s own possession, and completed on April 6, 2015, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant establishment registration”) on April 6, 2015.

C. From June 7, 2015, the Plaintiff’s subrogated lost the interest on the instant loan from June 7, 2015, thereby losing the benefit of time. On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff repaid to the Bank the principal and interest of the instant loan KRW 259,863,723 on behalf of the Bank.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), purport of whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion B concluded a mortgage contract in this case with the Defendant with insolvency and completed the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case with the Defendant, the mortgage contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act inasmuch as the shortage of liability property for general creditors is caused or deepened.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is a beneficiary, sought payment of KRW 116,587,446 as the cancellation of the mortgage contract of this case and the subsequent equivalent compensation.

B. Judgment 1 5.0