1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment by subrogationing C around C, and sought the revocation of the fraudulent act and the return of the value preliminary. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim.

As to this, the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against their respective losing parts, and thereafter the plaintiff withdraws the appeal, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the conjunctive claim of which the defendant appealed.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff loaned money to C from April 2004 to February 2012, 2012. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed the remainder amount of KRW 366,60 million with C, and the remaining amount of KRW 600,000,000,000 was paid immediately, and KRW 360,000,000 to be paid until December 25, 2015, and received a certificate of borrowing KRW 360,00,000 from C.

Then, on July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C on the ground of the above loan loan claim with the Ulsan District Court 2013Kahap4919, and was sentenced on August 14, 2014 to “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 360 million and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from August 22, 2013 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Meanwhile, the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, which was based on the maximum debt amount of KRW 84 million, was completed on the real estate listed in the attached list, which was owned by C (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On November 13, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, which was based on the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis of KRW 270,000,000,000 (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis”).

C. C, by requiring E, who purchased the instant real estate on February 13, 2013, to directly pay KRW 70 million to the Defendant, the Defendant shall be paid KRW 70 million under the pretext of the repayment of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant repayment”).