1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall include the costs incurred by the supplementary participation in the co-litigation.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2, 2013, an intervenor joining the Plaintiff’s co-litigation as a credit guarantee agency (hereinafter “Game Credit Guarantee Foundation”) entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the period from October 2, 2013 to October 11, 2018, with the credit guarantee principal of KRW 25 million, and the credit guarantee period from October 2, 2013 to October 11, 2018. The Plaintiff was loaned KRW 25 million from Han Bank on October 11, 2013 under the said credit guarantee agreement of the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation.

B. On January 3, 2017, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of the term of the above loan obligation, and the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation subrogated for KRW 20,989,035 on behalf of the Plaintiff to Han Bank based on the aforementioned credit guarantee agreement.

C. On the other hand, on November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sold real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as its sole property (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and on December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant registration”).

On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff was decided to commence individual rehabilitation procedures with Suwon District Court 2017da590, and at present, the individual rehabilitation procedures against the Plaintiff are in progress.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 12, 19 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Articles 584 and 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act regarding the cause of the claim, “act performed by an obligor with knowledge that it would harm rehabilitation creditors” is subject to avoidance. As seen earlier, the act of selling the instant real estate, which is the only property of the Plaintiff, to the Defendant and changing the said real estate into money that is easy for the Plaintiff to consume is a fraudulent act against the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation, a creditor, barring special circumstances. The Plaintiff’s malicious intent is presumed to be the subject of avoidance. Thus, the instant sales contract is subject to avoidance.

Therefore, the sales contract of this case is concluded.