1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added or emphasized the content that the defendant asserted by adding or emphasizing at the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(except for parts related to A and B, Codefendant A and B in the first instance trial)

2. Additional supplementary judgment

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against co-defendant B of the first instance trial was not established at the time of the fraudulent act of this case, and that it is highly probable to regard that the claim for indemnity should be established in the future, and that the above claim for indemnity cannot be a preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case.

On January 2, 2018, upon which the mortgage contract of this case was concluded, the debtor A and the joint guarantor B due to the plaintiff's subrogation did not have any claim for indemnity against the principal debtor A and the joint guarantor B, but the credit guarantee agreement of this case was already concluded. 2) On February 27, 2018, where two months have not yet passed since the contract of this case was concluded, A closed its business, and it was managed as an enterprise subject to poor treatment on March 6, 2018, and there was no possibility of repayment of loans to D bank. In light of the fact that D bank notified the plaintiff of a credit guarantee accident on April 18, 2018, it is highly probable that at the time of entering into the mortgage contract of this case, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against B was created in the near future, and it is probable that it is possible to do so, and thus, A becomes a claim for reimbursement of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant defenses that B's fraudulent act is bona fide, but it is presumed that the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in the revocation lawsuit.