1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B obtained a loan of KRW 85 million from C Bank on April 30, 2012, and the Plaintiff issued to C Bank a credit guarantee letter that guarantees B’s debt.

B. B, around February 7, 2018, caused a credit guarantee accident due to bad faith, and the Plaintiff subrogated to C Bank for the principal and interest of B’s loan obligation amounting to KRW 38,627,258 on August 14, 2018 upon the request for performance of guaranteed obligation by C Bank.

C. On November 22, 2017, B made a promise to sell and purchase the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1) (hereinafter “instant promise”) with the Defendant on April 16, 2018, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”) was completed on April 16, 2018. On April 16, 2018, B entered into a mortgage contract (hereinafter “instant mortgage contract”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (2) and completed the registration of creation of mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of mortgage of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 9 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant reservation and mortgage contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the provisional registration of the instant case and the establishment registration of mortgage near the instant provisional registration should be revoked.

B. 1) Determination of the relevant legal doctrine refers to the act of causing damage to the creditor by causing the debtor to go beyond his/her obligation by actively reducing his/her property or increasing his/her negative property, or deepening the fact that he/she has already been in excess of his/her obligation. Moreover, whether the debtor is in excess of his/her obligation as such in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act is determined as at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da118334, Apr. 26, 2013).