1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 22, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From March to April 2016, the Defendant invested KRW 100,000,00 to A.

A, September 2, 2016, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “The notary public pays KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant at least eight times on the last day of May 2017 as of the last day of May 2017 (Provided, That in the last month, KRW 79,000,000)” (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”).

B. A failed to pay to the Defendant KRW 3,000,000 as the initial installment payment agreement entered in the instant notarial deed by May 31, 2017.

On June 2, 2017, the Defendant filed a request for auction against the F apartment G (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) owned by Nam-gu Incheon District Court E, Incheon District Court E, and the compulsory auction procedure was commenced on June 5, 2017.

C. On June 30, 2017, A repaid KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendant on condition of the withdrawal of the above request for auction (hereinafter “instant repayment”), and the Defendant withdrawn the above request for auction on the same day.

After that, on July 21, 2017, A filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Incheon District Court 2017Hadan3170, and the above court declared A bankrupt on October 17, 2017 and appointed the Plaintiff as the bankruptcy trustee.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant repayment by A constitutes an act of biased repayment under Article 391 subparag. 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the restitution to its original state. The instant repayment act constitutes a fraudulent act under Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act and constitutes a subject of avoidance. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant is the obligor A.