1. The case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Facts recognized;

A. On November 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with C, and the said company provided a credit guarantee for the repayment of principal and interest to be borne by the said company by receiving a loan of KRW 50 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea, and B, a inside director of the said company, jointly and severally guaranteed the said company’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

B. On May 13, 2014, C lost the interest of the loan due to the delinquency of the loan interest, and on September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff subrogated 50,817,216 won of the loan interest to the Industrial Bank of Korea on September 24, 2014. The agreed damages rate for the subrogated amount is 12% per annum, and the late payment is 290,360 won.

C. On July 15, 2014, B entered into a payment contract in lieu of the amount of KRW 66,654,278 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) which is the only property between Defendant A and Defendant A, as the representative director of Defendant D Co., Ltd., the transaction partner, or the amount of KRW 5,00,000,000,000,000,000.

After completing the registration of ownership transfer concerning each of the instant real estate on July 21, 2014, Defendant A completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 21, 2014, Defendant A cancelled the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW E, the debtor B, the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000 and KRW 10,000,000,000, but completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 28, 2015 by Changwon District Court, Kimhae-hae registry, the receipt of KRW 128146, Oct. 29,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 13, fact-finding results to the Seocho-gu Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The obligee’s right of revocation is a right to revoke the obligor’s act of disposal of the debtor’s property by fraudulent act and to seek restitution thereof, and is not a right to exclusively satisfy the obligor’s right of revocation for the sake of returning the obligor’s property deviating from the fraudulent act to the obligor for total creditors. Therefore, the obligee is not a right to exclusively satisfy the obligor’s property.