1. As to KRW 42,914,049 and KRW 40,895,137 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A’s year from September 24, 2015 to February 3, 2016.

Paragraph 1 of attached Form A of the grounds for the Defendant’s claim to indicate the Defendant’s claim.

Since a judgment by service by public notice is a judgment by public notice, only the matters necessary to specify the reasons for the written judgment pursuant to Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be briefly indicated. In full view of the facts acknowledged by the defendant B, the entries (including the paper numbers) in the evidence Nos. 1 through 9 of the facts No. 9 of the defendant B, the Korea Federation of Banks, the fact inquiry results of this court against the National Court Administration, and the overall purport of the arguments in the reply to financial transaction information of the IBK Bank, it may be recognized that

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's right of revocation is established once.

Defendant B’s defense was determined on July 21, 2014, and on November 10, 2014, at the time of sale and purchase, Defendant B did not know that it would prejudice A’s creditor, and thus, Defendant B did not bona fide defense.

According to the evidence Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the above defendant lent KRW 100 million to A without interest agreement, and the defendant had the highest priority collective security right as of July 15, 201 but decided to yield it in consultation with A after cancellation of the defendant's collective security right once it was decided to yield it under consultation with A, it can be acknowledged that on July 2, 2014, the Nonghyup Bank and Incheon Savings Bank set up each collective security right as a priority priority and then was re-established by the defendant's collective security right as of July 21, 2014.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B was unaware of the establishment of the right to collateral security on July 21, 2014 and the right to collateral security on November 10, 2014 at the time of sale and purchase, and that Defendant B was unaware of the harm to A’s creditors.

The above defendant's defense is justified.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is rejected as there is no ground.