1. As to KRW 100,816,134 and KRW 99,750,741 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A’s year from March 21, 2019 to March 31, 2019.

1. Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of principal and interest on indemnity against Defendant A;

(a) Indication of claims: The grounds for the instant claims against the defendant A are as shown in the attached Form;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and the main sentence of Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The plaintiff's revocation of fraudulent act against the defendant B and compensation for the equivalent value

A. Under each credit guarantee agreement entered into with Defendant A, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,750,741 on March 21, 2019 (= KRW 74,529,968, KRW 25,220,773) to C, a creditor of Defendant A, in total, KRW 688,790 as penalty under each credit guarantee agreement, immediately after he/she subrogated for the payment of the amount of KRW 9,750,741 (= KRW 74,529,968, KRW 25,220,773). The Plaintiff spent KRW 376

(2) However, around September 27, 2018, at the time when Defendant A was highly likely to have a debt owed to the Plaintiff, such as the principal and interest of the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff, the following sales of the apartment house (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment for convenience”) emitted from the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) in the so-called “excess of debt”) around September 27, 2018, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the instant apartment on October 2, 2018. On October 2, 2018, the registration of the creation of each of the initial collateral security rights, which was completed in the name of the Plaintiff C, was revoked, immediately after the cancellation of the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security amount of KRW 2720,000,000,000,

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties, or a part of Gap 1-8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

나. 양쪽의 주장에 대한 판단 (1) 위에서 인정한 사실관계에 의하면, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이 사건 매매계약은 피고 A의 채권자인 원고 등에 대한 관계에서 사해행위에 해당하므로, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 사해행위의 취소와 아울러 그에 따른 원상회복으로서 가액배상 ∵...