1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 27, 2001, the Plaintiff is the transferee of the principal and interest of loans of Daeyang Mutual Savings and Finance Company, Taeyang Mutual Savings and Finance Company, Daegu, Inc., Ltd., as to the above claims, and the trustee in bankruptcy of Taeyang Mutual Savings and Finance Company, etc., as to the above claims, participated in the loan claim claim lawsuit filed by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, which was filed by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, as the Plaintiff’s successor, as the Plaintiff’s successor on December 13, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 1, 2013, and the amount of the claim is KRW 10,368,946 as of February 25, 2016.

B. On the other hand, on December 26, 2011, B prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (a repayment contract entered in the attached list) stating the purport of accepting compulsory execution in the event that B fails to repay the debt of KRW 400 million to the Defendant by December 27, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant authentic deed” or “instant debt repayment contract” (hereinafter referred to as “instant authentic deed”).

Then, the Defendant, based on the above notarial deed, received a claim attachment and collection order from Suwon District Court 2014TTT as of May 30, 2014 with respect to the claim for wages against B, and accordingly, received a dividend of KRW 6,163,521, and KRW 8,828,171, and the sum of KRW 14,91,692 in the distribution procedure in the same support E-distribution procedure from Suwon District Court as the collection authority.

At the time of the instant debt repayment contract, B did not have any particular property other than the wage claim against the case, but on the other hand, there were many creditors such as the new bank, the National Bank, and the new card company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-6, Eul evidence 11

2. Determination as to the existence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act

A. According to the fact that the existence of the preserved claim exists and the existence of the preserved claim is recognized, the Plaintiff’s above transferred claim against B is arising prior to the instant repayment contract between B and the Defendant, and thus, the obligee’s right of revocation is preserved.

B. Whether B is insolvent.