1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A had a claim for return of deposit for lease against B (hereinafter “instant claim”).

A transferred the instant claim to C, and the notice of assignment of the claim was served to B on February 18, 2016.

B. On December 28, 2015, Defendant Han Bank Co., Ltd. received a provisional attachment order of the claim amounting to 43,114,470 on the instant claim under this Court Order 2015Kadan1368, and the said decision was served on B, a garnishee, on January 4, 2016.

On January 20, 2016, the Defendant Chungcheongnam-Nam Credit Guarantee Foundation received a provisional attachment order of 42,500,000 of the claim amount for the instant claim under this Court Order 2016Kadan45, and the said order was served on B, a third debtor, on January 26, 2016.

C. After the claim of this case was transferred to C, the Korea Development Bank, including the Plaintiff, and the Korea Development Bank, issued a seizure collection order stipulated as the debtor A and the third debtor B with respect to the claim of this case.

B deposited KRW 48,378,805, the amount of the instant claim, and only the Defendants received dividends in the distribution procedure for the said deposit (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”) in proportion to their respective claims.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the assignment of claims between A and C should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and that the deposit money between B should be distributed in proportion to the amount of claims among creditors, so the Defendants are liable to return the share to be distributed to the Plaintiff due to the return of unjust enrichment.

B. Where a debtor performs a juristic act aimed at a property right with the knowledge that such act would prejudice the creditor, the creditor may file a claim by means of filing a lawsuit against the court for revocation of the fraudulent act, but may not be asserted by means of an attack and defense in

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da8393 delivered on July 25, 1995, etc.). In addition, the creditor cancels the fraudulent act.