1. It is limited to July 17, 2017 with respect to one-six shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and C.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in the statement in Evidence Nos. 1 through 2, 9 (including each number), and No. 1, as to revocation of fraudulent act’s revocation, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Bank”) granted a loan of KRW 2,00,000 per annum to C (hereinafter “Non-Party”) on November 23, 2009 by setting the interest rate of KRW 43.9% per annum, and 36 months per month on 28th day of each month (hereinafter “the instant loan”); the non-party bank transferred the instant loan claim to E Co., Ltd. on April 27, 2016; on May 10, 2016, E Co., Ltd transferred its assets comprehensively to the Plaintiff; on July 1, 2016, Non-Party Bank sent a notice of transfer of the instant loan claim to the non-party bank to the Plaintiff; on July 28, 2016, it could be recognized that the said notice was returned to the recipient on July 28, 16, 2016.

According to this, the plaintiff acquired the opposing power against the non-party as the transferee of the loan claim of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the loan of this case can be the preserved claim of creditor's right of revocation.

The defendant's 1st defense is invalid for the portion exceeding 30% per annum, which is the limit prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act, among the interest claims on the loans of this case.

On the other hand, the Interest Limitation Act does not apply to the financial business and credit business for which authorization, permission or registration has been completed in accordance with other Acts (Article 7 of the Interest Limitation Act). In full view of the overall purport of pleadings, the non-party bank can recognize the fact that it is a credit financial institution authorized in accordance with Article 6 (1) of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Act No. 8863 of Feb. 29, 2008) on May 4, 2005. Thus, the Interest Limitation Act does not apply to the instant loan. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on different premise is needed further.