1. On March 20, 2014, Nonparty B entered the Defendant on March 20, 2014, “amounting to KRW 500,000,000, the addressee, the Defendant, and the date of issuance.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 40,00,00 to B with the loan period of KRW 48 months, interest rate of KRW 23.90 per annum, interest rate of KRW 33.90 per annum, interest rate of delay delay, and equal repayment method. B delayed repayment of the principal and interest after April 14, 2014, and as of November 15, 2016, the total amount of the obligations incurred by B to the Plaintiff in relation to the loan was KRW 58,471,018 (= interest rate of KRW 29,156,060 at KRW 2,236,685 interest rate of KRW 25,869,650 at interest rate of KRW 1,208,623).

B. On March 20, 2014, B issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant, “The amount of face value KRW 500,000,000, the addressee, the Defendant, and the date of issuance, March 20, 2014, and March 31, 2014, the date of payment, and each of the dates of payment,” and on March 20, 2014, a notary public’s office, which recognizes compulsory execution as to the obligation of the said promissory note, prepared and issued a notarized deed under Article 301 of the C Office 201 of the 2014 Deed.

C. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant, with the title of execution, received an assignment order for the wage claim held against the medical corporation Jinjin Medical Foundation from Gwangju District Court 2014TTT2757 (hereinafter “instant assignment order”). According to the instant assignment order, the Defendant received KRW 160,000,000 in total from the medical corporation Jinjin Medical Foundation from May 9, 2014 to December 9, 2016 according to the instant assignment order.

B did not have any specific property at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes, while the Plaintiff was also liable for a number of debts other than the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition of preserved claims, the Plaintiff’s loans against B may be the preserved claim against the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. One of the fraudulent acts as to the establishment of the fraudulent act is in excess of the obligation by reducing the obligor’s active property or increasing the negative property.