1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with the Nonparty Company and loaned the principal amount of KRW 120 million to the Nonparty Company.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”). B.

On August 18, 2014, the non-party company entered into an entrustment management contract with the non-party company (the non-party company) on the instant motor vehicle. According to the above contract, the ownership of the instant motor vehicle belongs to the non-party company, but the non-party company (the non-party company) entrusted the operation and management right of the instant motor vehicle with the non-party company to operate and manage the instant motor vehicle and to pay

C. B terminated the consignment management contract with the non-party company on January 2017, and entered into the consignment management contract with the defendant on January 17, 2017.

Accordingly, on January 31, 2017, the non-party company entered into a contract to sell the instant motor vehicle to the defendant, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the instant motor vehicle as stated in the claim in the future of the defendant.

E. Meanwhile, since May 2, 2017, the non-party company delayed the repayment of the instant loan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s act of selling the instant motor vehicle to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the obligee, and thus, the above sales contract should be revoked, and the transfer of ownership registered in the future with respect to the instant motor vehicle should be revoked due to its reinstatement.

3. Determination

A. In general, it is deemed that the transfer of the ownership of a part-time vehicle by a local government-invested company to another third party designated by the local government-invested company upon the termination of the local government-invested contract does not constitute a fraudulent act merely because the local government-invested company, the trustee, merely performs the existing obligation whose ownership is returned to the local government-invested company.