1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “the instant credit guarantee agreement”) with Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) by setting the guarantee amount of KRW 255,00,000, and the guarantee period of KRW 18,000 until March 18, 2016 (up to March 16, 2018, the guarantee period of the said credit guarantee was finally extended by the guarantee period of the Nonparty Co., Ltd.) as a credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “the instant credit guarantee agreement”). B jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt, such as indemnity amount, in accordance with

B. The non-party company received a loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea under the instant credit guarantee agreement, and on February 20, 2018, lost the benefit of the loan due to overdue interest payment.

C. On June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 232,624,337 to the Industrial Bank of Korea in accordance with the instant credit guarantee agreement.

On the other hand, on October 20, 2017, B entered into a mortgage agreement (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”) with the Defendant as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage as the receipt of No. 12738, Oct. 23, 2017, with the maximum debt amount of the Defendant 90,000,000 won.

E. The instant real estate is the only real estate owned by B as of October 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, fact inquiry results of this court's inquiry about the head of the D branch office of this court, the results of the order to submit financial transaction information to the head of the D branch office of this court, the purport

2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. Whether a preserved claim is established or not, in principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before the obligor performs a juristic act aimed at property rights with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, there is a legal relationship that has already been established at the time of the juristic act.