1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

B obtained a loan from the Plaintiff on May 7, 2012, B created the right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 1498 million with respect to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff.

On April 1, 2014, on the instant real estate upon the Plaintiff’s application, a voluntary auction procedure was initiated on April 1, 2014.

(D) The Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that it is a lessee who paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 26 million with respect to the instant real estate during the above auction procedure.

On May 21, 2015, this Court distributed KRW 22 million to the Defendant on the date of distribution implemented on May 21, 2015, and distributed KRW 99,089,130 to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the defendant on the date of distribution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, and the purport of the entire argument as to the claim for revocation of fraudulent act, the plaintiff asserts that the conclusion of a small-sum lease agreement with the defendant on the real estate of this case in excess of debt B constitutes fraudulent act, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed, so the lease agreement of this case should be revoked.

Even if the debtor disposes of other properties, if the right to collateral security has been established in the future for the creditor regarding the immovables owned by the debtor, and the creditor has the right to preferential reimbursement against the whole amount of the claim exceeding the amount of the claim concerned, such act of disposal of properties is not prejudicial to the creditor, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act against the creditor. In such a case, whether the debtor's act of disposal of properties constitutes a fraudulent act

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the assertion of evidence No. 8, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the assertion of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.