1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's claim for revocation of fraudulent act and the lessee's claim for confirmation.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 28, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant C with Busan District Court 2013Gapo22171, and on June 18, 2013, the above court concluded a mediation that “The Defendant C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,000,000, which shall be paid by June 30, 2014, and if delay, it shall be paid by adding the delay damages at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.”

B. On January 3, 2016, Defendant B, his father and wife of Defendant C, entered into a contract with Defendant C to lease the real estate indicated in the attached Form with a deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,00, and the lease term of KRW 2 years from January 5, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for revocation of fraudulent act against Defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant C entered into the instant lease agreement with Defendant D in the name of Defendant B with a view to evading the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Plaintiff. As such, the instant lease agreement ought to be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B. Determination 1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act by a creditor, along with the revocation of a fraudulent act, the creditor is only the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, and there is no standing to be the defendant against the debtor (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da72394 Decided January 15, 2009) (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da72394, Jan. 15, 2009). Thus, the beneficiary of the instant lease agreement alleged to be a fraudulent act is D, and there is no standing to be the defendant against the defendant

3 Therefore, the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act against Defendant B is unlawful.

3. Determination as to the lessee’s claim against the Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was concluded with Defendant C in the name of Defendant D to evade the Plaintiff’s obligation, and thus, the contractual party should be deemed to be Defendant C and D.

Therefore, the lessee of the instant lease agreement is the defendant.