1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Regarding the claims filed by the Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2018, 100726, supra.

1. Basic facts

A. The debtor B, a company, established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of medical devices, etc. (hereinafter “debtor B”), operated the business of supplying medical devices and medical supplies necessary for hospital opening units.

B. A representative D of the debtor company borrowed KRW 400 million from E on February 1, 2016 and remitted the total amount to the debtor company on March 31, 2016. On the same day, the debtor company repaid the amount of KRW 330,000,000 to the plaintiff and the commercial transaction obligation to the other customers.

(hereinafter “instant repayment act”). (C) The instant repayment act against the Plaintiff.

On September 27, 2016, the debtor company reported the closure of business to the Seoul Guro Tax Office, and on August 16, 2017, the debtor company filed a petition for bankruptcy as Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017Hahap10024, and was declared bankrupt on September 13, 2017, and the defendant was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

In the above bankruptcy proceedings, the Defendant claimed 330,000,000 won by exercising the right to set aside avoidance against the instant repayment act as Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2010726,000, and damages for delay thereof. On October 1, 2019, the court rendered a decision on October 1, 2019 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 330,000,000 won, and 15% per annum from December 22, 2018 to May 31, 2019, and 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full repayment” (hereinafter “instant decision”).

[Ground of recognition] A.1, 2, and 4 (if a.g., number 1), evidence B. 1, witness D’s testimony, the purpose of the entire pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the repayment of this case constitutes a simple repayment to a specific creditor in order to avoid the principle of creditor equality, knowing that the debtor company would prejudice the bankruptcy creditor, and thus, it should be denied pursuant to Article 391 subparagraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act").

The plaintiff, the plaintiff of this case.