1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, including a claim for exchange change in the trial:

1. On July 16, 2010, the underlying facts (1) AD Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as “B”) established a loan of KRW 8 million to the co-defendant A of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as “A”) at the rate of three years and 43.9% per annum.

(2) On December 30, 2010, A sold real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Codefendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the first instance trial on December 30, 2010 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to B on the same day.

(3) On February 23, 2011, B sold the instant real estate to the Defendant, and on March 3, 2011, B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant.

(4) At the time of the instant sales contract, A was in a state of excess of debt, and the instant real estate was the sole property.

(5) On November 16, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the above loan to A from the bank, and on behalf of the non-party bank, on July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention of giving notice of the assignment of claims to A, thereby reaching A on July 5, 2013.

(6) Meanwhile, on the other hand, on July 17, 2009, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was completed under the name of the Youngdong Community Depository, the maximum debt amount of KRW 13 million, and the debtor, A, but on May 15, 2014, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was revoked.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, 6, Gap evidence 7-1, 2-7, Gap evidence 11, the court of first instance, the court's achievement of fact inquiry, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a fraudulent act and thus ought to be revoked. The Defendant, the subsequent purchaser, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 14,474,061 as restitution for the revocation of the fraudulent act, and delay damages therefrom.

3. Determination

A. According to the fact that the existence of the preserved claim is recognized, the non-party bank is against A at the time of the instant sales contract.