1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Defendant’s receipt of the instant dividend is a biased act that undermines equal distribution among the bankruptcy creditors of Sung Chang-don.

However, the phrase “when an executory act” under Article 395 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) does not require special circumstances to be seen as being the same as the debtor’s act, but can be denied if the executory act satisfies the objective requirements, such as damage to the bankruptcy creditors, etc.

Therefore, it is denied that the Defendant’s receiving of the instant dividend constitutes a biased act and is subject to denial as prescribed by Articles 395 and 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Even if the application of Article 395 and Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act requires “special circumstances that can be seen as the debtor’s act,” the Defendant’s receipt of dividend payment on January 18, 2016 constitutes a non-principal act as of January 18, 2016, where the time of receipt of dividend payment does not exceed 60 days prior to the date of application for commencement of rehabilitation order by Sung Chang-D, and the return of deposit money to the Defendant constitutes a non-principal act, and thus, it does not constitute a non-principal act.

Therefore, since the act of receiving dividends from September 4, 2015 constitutes an intentional act under Article 395 and Article 391 subparag. 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (in crisised person with respect to non-principal act), the above two acts are denied, and the defendant's act of receiving dividends from September 4, 2015 constitutes a biased act and there are special circumstances that can be seen as identical to the debtor's act, and therefore, it is denied as it constitutes an intentional act under Article 395 and Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation

. include the Defendant.