1. A lease contract concluded on May 12, 2013 between the Defendant and B regarding No. 2, 101, Dong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2009, the Plaintiff leased KRW 70 million (interest rate: 0.2% per annum, and 21% per annum) to B on November 24, 2009, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 91 million per maximum debt amount with respect to No. 2-dong 101 (hereinafter “instant housing”) of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government building B owned as collateral (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. On May 12, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease contract of KRW 22 million (payment date of KRW 19 million: June 8, 2013) with respect to the instant housing (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and the term of the lease contract from June 8, 2013 to June 8, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and completed the move-in report on the instant housing and obtained a fixed date in the lease contract.

C. On October 10, 2013, according to the Plaintiff’s request for auction for the enforcement of the right to collateral security, an auction procedure for the instant house was commenced (Yancheon District Court D). As the Plaintiff first distributed the amount of KRW 20 million to the Defendant on the ground that he/she is a small lessee at the above auction procedure, the amount of the claim was KRW 85,741,370 (= Principal KRW 15,741,370) out of KRW 52,146,613 of the amount of the claim (= Principal KRW 70 million).

On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff received a provisional disposition prohibiting the payment of the dividend from the Defendant on the ground that the right to claim restitution due to the revocation of the fraudulent act against the Defendant was a preserved right.

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 20, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument as to whether a fraudulent act constitutes Gap's fraudulent act, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 10, 19, and the fact-finding with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this Court, ① The housing of this case at the time of conclusion of the instant lease agreement, including the plaintiff's right to collateral security (the maximum amount of claim KRW 91 million), E-W, Nov. 5, 201 (the maximum amount of claim KRW 30 million), New Card Co., Ltd. on January 17, 2013 (the claim amount), provisional seizure (the claim amount KRW 6,160,643), and provisional seizure (the claim amount KRW 1,120,000) of the Incheon Credit Guarantee Foundation on February 4, 2013.