1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. Attached list A between the defendant and the co-defendant A of the first instance trial.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. In principle, a claim that may be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that the existence of a preserved claim is prejudicial to the obligee. However, in a case where, at the time of a juristic act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of establishment of the claim, has already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that a claim has been created by the near future legal relationship, and where a claim has been

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendant and the first instance court’s co-defendant A (hereinafter “A”) concluded a credit guarantee agreement of this case, which is the legal basis for the establishment of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of this case, at the time of such agreement, was concluded, and the credit guarantee accident of this case occurred to this natural body on January 6, 2012, prior to the conclusion of the mortgage contract of this case. In light of the above facts and the evidence, it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s claim for advance reimbursement of this case was likely to occur. In fact, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of this case was established on May 17, 2012 and its probability was realized by establishing the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of this case is the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. A claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation as to the debtor’s insolvency should, in principle, have occurred before the debtor performs a juristic act aimed at property rights with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee.