The assignment of dividend claim of this case constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors such as the plaintiff.

Since the delinquent corporation, in collusion with the beneficiary, transferred the dividend claim of this case with the intent to harm other creditors including the plaintiff, etc., the transfer of the dividend claim of this case constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors including the plaintiff.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2016 Doz. 47280 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimA and 2

September 6, 2017

September 27, 2017

1. 가. DD 주식회사와 주식회사 EE 사이에 FF지방법원 2012타경XXXXX호 부동산 임의경매사건에서 DD 주식회사가 가지는 배당금청구채권에 관하여 2015. 10. 8. 체결된 채권양도계약을 취소한다.

나. 피고 김AA는 DD 주식회사에 FF지방법원 2013년 금제XXXX호로 공탁된 공탁금 359,XXX,XXX원에 대한 공탁금출급청구권을 양도하는 의사표시를 하고, 대한민국(소관 : FF지방법원 공탁공무원)에게 위 채권양도의 통지를 하라.

C. Defendant literatureB shall pay to the Plaintiff 131, commercial breaks-out, commercial breaks-out, and commercial breaks-out, and 5% interest per annum from the day after the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

D. Defendant PCC shall pay to the Plaintiff 107, commercial breaks-out, commercial breaks-out, and its set-off at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the judgment of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim

1) DD 주식회사(이하 'DD'이라 한다)는 주식회사 EE(이하 'EE'이라 한다)으로부터 FF OO구 OO동 26-XX 임야 29,XXX㎡(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)를 매수하여 2005. 12. 6. 그 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

2) 이후 이 사건 부동산은 FF지방법원 2012타경XXXXX호 부동산임의경매절차(이하 '이 사건 임의경매절차'라 한다)에서 2013. 6. 20. 매각대금을 62억 원으로 하여 매각되었다.

3) The head of the GG Tax Office decided to impose corporate tax of KRW 1,00,000 on D on the basis of the sale amount of the instant real estate, etc. However, D has filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the said decision on the ground that the said decision was not lawfully delivered. On this matter, the court of first instance (FF District Court 2014 Gu Partnership), which decided that the said decision was invalid on the ground that it was delivered to the representative director who already resigned and thus invalidated, and the head of the GG Tax Office appealed appealed.

4) On November 17, 2014, the head of the GG Tax Office revoked the said decision ex officio on the grounds of the service defect, and subsequently, the notified tax payment period on February 28, 2015, and on February 2015, 2015, the notice amount was determined at KRW 1 billion for corporate tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, 000 won, 3,272, capital gains, 000 won, and notified D’s H prior to the representative director on February 5, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). D, on May 20, 2015, the appellate court (FF High Court 2014Nu), dismissed D’s claim to seek confirmation of the invalidity of the instant disposition, and the said court dismissed D’s appeal on May 20, 2015 (Supreme Court).

5) In addition to the taxation claims imposed by the instant disposition, DD did not pay: (a) comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2012; (b) capital gains; (c) capital gains; (d) capital gains; (d) capital gains; (d) capital gains; (e) capital gains; (e) capital gains; (e) capital gains; (e) capital gains; (e) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; (f) capital gains; and (f) capital gains; and (f

B. Assignment of dividends claim of this case and receipt of dividends

1) The first distribution was made on June 20, 2013 in the voluntary auction procedure with respect to the instant real estate. As to the 1,274,000,000 won distributed to creditors Kim II, the auction court of the said voluntary auction procedure deposited the said 1,274,00,000 won as the FF District Court’s gold-making in 2013. Thereafter, the said amount of distribution of creditors Kim II was finally corrected to 0 won in the FF High Court (FF High Court 2014, or 2014).

2) On October 2, 2015, D and EE entered into an agreement with the FF district court to transfer all of the dividend claim claims for the voluntary auction case of FF district court 2012 other 2012 to E on October 31, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant dividend claim”) with respect to the lawsuit (FF district court 2015 KF District Court 2015 KF District Court 2015 KF District Court 2015 KF District 2015 KF District Court 2000. In addition, D and EE agreed to transfer the dividend claim claim of the instant case of voluntary auction case of DD (hereinafter referred to as “instant dividend claim”). In addition, if D and E are revoked, E and E transferred the dividend claim of this case from D to the creditor of the FF government 20/100,000 KFA to the creditor of the FFA, and notify the deposit of this agreement.

3) On October 8, 2015, DD transferred the instant dividend claim to EE (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract for the transfer of dividend claim”) and notified it to the Republic of Korea (the competent FF District Depository). The notice reached October 12, 2015.

4) On October 16, 2015, E transferred 60% of the instant dividend claim to Defendant KimA, 22% to Defendant LAB, and 18% to Defendant SungCC, respectively, and notified the Republic of Korea (competent FF District Deposit Officials) thereof, and the said notification reached October 22, 2015.

5) On December 23, 2015, an additional distribution schedule was prepared to distribute 1,026,108,230 won as surplus earnings to DD, the owner of the instant real estate, as surplus earnings. Accordingly, in the distribution procedure of FF District Court 2015, FFF District Court 2015, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute 1,026,108,230 won and interest 10,896,422 won among the total sum of 1,037,04,652 won and 1,896,63,632 won, among the total sum of 1,037,04,652 won and interest 1,09,63,632 won to Defendant Kim Dong, 131,865,65 won, and 107,890,090 won to Defendant PCC.

6) Defendant AB received comprehensive delegation from Defendant ACC on distribution procedures. On March 7, 2016, Defendant AB received dividends of KRW 131,865,665, and dividends of KRW 107,890,090 to Defendant AB based on the said distribution schedule and dividends of KRW 107,890,090 to Defendant CCC.

7) On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of claims with the FFF District Court Decision 2016Kadan52646 on the part of KRW 359,63,632, out of the dividend claim in this case, for which Defendant KimA received dividends, and the FF District Court rendered a provisional seizure order on August 19, 2016. Accordingly, Defendant KimA was unable to receive current dividends.

C. The status of D's assets

On the other hand, a small property was a tax obligation against the Plaintiff for the business year 2013, corporate tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, KRW 3,272,00, global real estate tax in 2012, which was 4,156,220, global real estate tax in 2013, and comprehensive real estate tax in 2013, which was 4,315,880 won.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 10, 17, 29 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, at least 3,272,049,00 won, including corporate tax in 2013, at least 4,156,220 won, comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2012, including comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2013, and 3,280,521,10 won, including comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2013, on October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff, who entered into the instant contract for the transfer of dividend claim, is recognized as having a taxation claim of KRW 3,280,521,10, which is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) The parties' assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

D, notwithstanding the absence of a debt owed to E, since D has transferred the instant dividend claim to EE in collusion with D's intent to undermine creditors, such as the Plaintiff, etc., it should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Even if D's debt owed to E' exists, D's transfer of the instant dividend claim to E's in collusion with E's intent to avoid repayment of the Plaintiff's tax claim, it should also be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B) Defendant 1’s assertion of Defendant 1B and SCC

EE had a purchase price claim or a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 1,100,00,000 with respect to D at the time of the transfer of the instant dividend claim. Since the instant dividend claim was transferred in lieu of the repayment of the said debt, this is only a repayment according to the principal place of debt and not a fraudulent act. Even if the said purchase price claim or claim for return of unjust enrichment is not recognized, the investment obligation was duly transferred the instant dividend claim pursuant to the agreement on the transfer of claims on October 2, 2015, which was between D and D, and thus, it is not a fraudulent act.

2) Relevant legal principles

As a matter of course, a creditor’s right to demand repayment of an obligation does not interfere with another creditor’s exercise of right, and an obligor does not refuse to perform his/her obligation on the ground that there is another creditor as it bears the obligation to perform his/her obligation according to the principal place of obligation. Thus, even in cases where a debtor’s joint security of other creditors is reduced by performing his/her obligation in excess of his/her obligation, the repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act in principle unless the debtor, in collusion with some creditors, performs the obligation with the intent of undermining other creditors. The same applies to cases where the debtor transfers another monetary claim in lieu of the former monetary obligation. In particular, the issue of whether the debtor transfers the repayment or assignment of the obligation with the intent of undermining other creditors in collusion with some creditors should be proved by the person asserting a fraudulent act. This should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the amount actually collected by the debtor and the beneficiary, the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the debtor’s ability to perform the obligation, the perception of repayment and transfer of obligation to the beneficiary at the time of delivery and transfer (see, etc.).

(iii) the facts of recognition

가) EE은 2004.경 FF광역시 JJ구청장으로부터 이 사건 부동산 지상에 주택건설사업 승인을 받았으나, 이 사건 부동산의 근저당권자인 KK종합건설 주식회사가 임의경매신청을 하는 등 위 사업 진행에 어려움이 생겼다. EE은 2005. 7. 20. 임시이사회를 개최하여 이 사건 부동산과 그에 대한 주택건설사업권을 타에 매도하기로 결의하고, 박LL, 석MM, 전HH 등과 함께 정NN으로부터 차용한 3억 원을 자본금으로 하여 2005. 11. 25. DD을 설립하였는데, DD의 주주는 석MM, 장OO, 박PP, 박LL으로 각 25% 지분의 주식을 소유하였고, 위 주주 중 박PP은 EE의 실사주인 박QQ를 대신한 차명주주였고, 장OO은 전HH를 대신한 차명주주였다.

B) On December 2, 2005, EE sold the instant real estate at KRW 4,830,000,000,000 for the purchase price, and paid the balance to EE after having terminated the provisional disposition of the instant real estate as the contract deposit of KRW 330,000,000,000, and 3.9 billion, out of the balance of KRW 4.5 billion, D takes over the secured obligation for KK General Construction, a collateral security right, and the remainder of KRW 600,00,00,000, E took over the instant real estate as a collateral and entered into a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “1 sales contract”). In addition, E sold the instant real estate as the purchase price between DD and December 5, 2005, and prepared a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “2 sales contract”) with the content that it was fully paid the purchase price on the same day.

C) EE claimed against D to the FF District Court 2007 A. 2007, the FF District Court, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the consent to the change of the owner’s title, and D. D had filed a counterclaim with FF District Court 2008Gahap1005 to seek implementation of the change of the name of the project owner under FF District Court 2008Gahap1005. On October 22, 2008, the above court ordered E to sell the instant real estate to DD and, at the same time, agreed to change the name of the owner of the housing construction project, E had D implement the procedures for the change of the name of the project owner. While EE appealed appealed appealed, the conciliation was concluded between the parties in the appellate court (FF High Court 2008B) and the litigation procedure was completed.

D) On January 22, 2015, E filed an application for provisional attachment of the instant dividend claim with FFF District Court 2015Kahap 2015 FF District Court on the ground that the instant real estate was held in title trust with DD, and that the amount of DD’s dividends in the auction procedure constituted unjust enrichment acquired without any legal cause, based on an invalid title trust agreement, constitutes a preserved right to return unjust enrichment in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,682,120,896, and that the FF District Court applied for provisional attachment of the instant claim. Accordingly, DF District Court decided to attach provisional attachment on March 25, 2015. Accordingly, DF District Court applied for the foregoing provisional attachment decision as FF District Court 2015Kapool. On July 8, 2015, FF District Court revoked the said provisional attachment decision and dismissed the said application for provisional attachment on the ground that lack of vindication of a title trust agreement between E and D.

E) On July 16, 2015, E filed an application for provisional seizure of the instant dividend claim with FF District Court 2015khap as a preserved right on December 5, 2005 on the instant real estate, with the purchase price of KRW 1.1 billion according to the sale and purchase contract of the FF District Court 2015khap. Accordingly, FF District Court rendered a provisional seizure order on July 27, 2015. D had raised an objection against the said provisional seizure order as FF District Court 2015khap. Accordingly, EE asserted that the said provisional seizure order was not paid 1.1 billion won on the basis of the sale and purchase contract of the FF District Court on October 7, 2015. The FF District Court revoked the said provisional seizure order and dismissed the said application for provisional seizure on the grounds that there is insufficient vindication of the preserved right.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 4, 8, 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

4) Determination

In full view of the above facts and the following circumstances revealed together with the purport of the entire pleadings, DD transferred the instant dividend claim with intent to impair other creditors, including the Plaintiff, in collusion with EE, and thus, DD’s transfer of dividend claim constitutes fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, including the Plaintiff, and is presumed to constitute a beneficiary EE and the subsequent purchaser, and the bad faith of Defendant KimA, doorB, and genderCC, which are beneficiaries, is presumed.

A) As to the instant real estate, there exists a separate sales contract between D and EE, and the second sales contract states that EE has already received KRW 1.1 billion from D from D on the date of the contract, there is no ground to recognize the sales price or unjust enrichment of KRW 1.1 billion even according to Defendant LB and ECC’s assertion, and EE states that there is no lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the owner’s change of name or provisional seizure interest case (FF District Court 2015C. 2015C.). However, in other provisional attachment objection case (FF District 2015C. 2015C. 2015C.), E cannot be deemed to exist a sales contract or unjust enrichment claim against D in relation to the instant real estate in full view of the following: (a) on the premise that there is a sales contract in another provisional attachment objection case (FF District 2015C. 200 million).

B) At the time of the instant contract for the transfer of dividends claim, D was in excess of the obligation, and D was the only property that could be recovered out of the responsible property DD. However, D transferred the instant dividends claim to EE in order to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the debt that is less than the full amount and not repaid.

C) On October 2, 2015, D shall enter into an agreement with EE to transfer the instant dividend claims, and on October 8, 2015, D shall transfer the instant dividend claims to EE, and the FF District Deposit Officials of the FF District delivered the notice of transfer on October 12, 2015. The above period is close to October 15, 2015, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s final appeal regarding the Plaintiff’s tax claims. In particular, on October 8, 2015, D’s transfer date of the instant dividend claims, the date following the day on which the provisional attachment order was revoked in the procedure for objection to the provisional attachment of DD’s claim (FF District Court 2015C) (FF District 2015C). However, D did not reasonably explain the reason why D voluntarily admitted the claim for the purchase price of E, while taking a position denying the purchase price of E’s claim during that period.

D) In light of the relationship between EE and D, EE seems to have known of the excess of debt or debt repayment capacity of D.

C. Determination as to the defendants' good faith defense

1) The defendants' assertion

가) 피고 김AA는 1997. 7.경 박QQ에게 367,000,000원을 투자하였는데, 이후 투원하우징이 위 투자금의 반환채무를 대신 변제하겠다는 약정을 하였고, 박QQ와 피고 문BB로부터 DD이 EE에게 이 사건 배당금채권을 양도받기로 하였다는 말을 듣게 되어 박QQ에게 투자금 367,000,000원의 반환을 요구한 후 EE으로부터 이 사건 배당금채권의 60% 부분을 양도받는 방식으로 변제를 받았으며, 위와 같이 배당금채권의 60% 부분을 양도받을 때 DD의 이 사건 배당금채권 양도가 사해행위였음을 알지 못하였다고 주장한다.

나) 피고 문BB는 박QQ에 대하여 151,500,000원의 대여금채권을 가지고 있는데, EE이 위 박QQ의 채무를 연대보증하였고, 위 연대보증채무의 변제로서 투원하우징으로부터 이 사건 배당금채권의 22% 부분을 양도받았으며, 위 배당금채권 22%부분을 양도받을 때 DD의 이 사건 배당금채권 양도가 사해행위였음을 알지 못하였다고 주장한다.

다) 피고 성CC은 박QQ가 EE에 대하여 가지고 있는 채권을 양수하여 이에 대한 변제로서 이 사건 배당금채권의 18% 부분을 양도받은 것이고, 위와 같이 배당금채권의 18% 부분을 양도받을 당시 DD의 이 사건 배당금채권 양도가 사해행위였음을 알지 못하였다고 주장한다.

(ii) the facts of recognition

가) 박QQ는 EE의 실사주이자 DD을 설립할 때 직접적으로 관여한 사람이다. 피고 김AA는 과거 박QQ의 직원으로 일한 적이 있고, 피고 문BB는 박QQ와 사업관계상 알게 된 사이이며, 피고 성CC은 박QQ의 배우자이다.

나) 박QQ를 각서인으로, ㈜ RR이 연대보증인으로 작성된 2002. 10. 2.자 각서(을가 제2호증의 1)에는 피고 김AA가 1997. 7.경 박QQ의 사업에 367,000,000원을 투자하였으나, 이를 변제받지 못하였고, 2002. 12. 31.까지 위 돈을 변제하겠다고 기재되어 있고, 2003. 6. 26.자로 EE 명의로 작성된 지불각서(을가 제2호증의 2)에는 EE이 김AA의 투자금을 인정하고 변제하겠다고 기재되어 있다.

다) 피고 문BB는 박QQ와 사이에 2003. 2. 4. 박QQ에게 120,000,000원을 대여하였다는 내용의 차용증을 작성하였고, EE은 2015. 1. 22. 위 채무를 연대보증함을 위 차용증에 기재하였다. 또한 피고 문BB는 박QQ, EE과 사이에 2015. 3. 30. 피고 문BB가 박QQ에게 2014. 12. 10.부터 2015. 3. 17.까지 합계 31,500,000원을 대여하였음을 확인하고, EE은 박QQ의 위 채무를 연대보증한다는 내용의 공정증서를 작성하였다.

D) According to the account records of literatureB, KRW 123,00,000 was deposited in cash on February 4, 2003, but KRW 120,049,428 was deposited in cash on February 24, 2003 after 20 days. In addition, on December 10, 2014, KRW 5,500,000 was paid to GabS with the litigation costs of EE, and KRW 5,00,000,000 was paid in total as KRW 10,00,000,000 in cash and KRW 10,000,000,000,000 was 10,000,000 in cash on January 28, 2015; KRW 10,000,000,000,000 in total,000,000,010,300,010.

마) 박QQ는 배우자인 피고 성CC 명의로 이 사건 배당금채권의 18% 부분을 양수하였고, 피고 문BB에게 직접 피고 성CC의 배당금 수령을 위임하였다. 피고 문BB는 피고 성CC의 배당금 107,890,090원을 수령한 후 박QQ의 요청에 따라 박QQ의 채권자 성TT에게 71,000,000원을 지급하였고, 나머지 36,890,090원은 박QQ에게 지급하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 11 to 13, Eul evidence 18 to 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen in light of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence alone presented by the Defendants is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants reversed the presumption of bad faith at the time of the Defendants’ act of pre-acquisition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

가) 피고들은 모두 박QQ와 밀접한 친분관계를 가지고 있고, 박QQ를 통하여 원고의 조세채권에 관한 대법원 판결 선고일 다음날인 2015. 10. 16. 일괄적으로 EE으로부터 이 사건 배당금채권의 각 부분을 양도받았다.

나) 을가 제2호증의 1, 2의 각 기재만으로는 피고 김AA가 박QQ에게 367,000,000원이라는 거금을 실제로 투자하였다고 선뜻 믿기 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 설령 위와 같은 채권이 과거에 존재하였다고 하더라도, 위 각서 및 지불각서의 작성일로부터 오랜 시간이 경과하였고, 그 이후 피고 김AA가 박QQ나 EE에 채권 변제를 요청하였다거나 소송의 제기, 공정증서의 작성 등 채권을 회수하기 위한 노력을 하였다고 볼 객관적인 증거가 없는 점 등을 고려하면, 피고 김AA의 전득행위 당시 피고 김AA의 EE에 대한 채권이 존재하였는지 의심스럽다.

C) Of the loan claims of KRW 151,50,000, which Defendant LB held against E, the amount of KRW 26,000,000 transferred or withdrawn from January 28, 2015 to March 17, 2015 cannot be confirmed as to whether it was paid to Defendant LB, and the amount of KRW 120,00,000,000 as of February 4, 2003 was deposited in cash and almost the same amount was deposited more than 20 days after the same account, it is unclear whether it was actually lent to Defendant LB.

라) 피고 성CC은 기존에 EE과 사이에 법률관계가 전혀 없던 상태였고, 배우자인 박QQ로부터 EE에 대한 채권을 양수하였다고 주장하나, 그 양수한 채권의 내용도 불분명하며, 피고 문BB로부터 배당금을 건네받지도 않았다.

D. The method and scope of revocation of fraudulent act and restitution to its original state

1) The dividend claim of Defendant KimA

Even if a distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive, in cases where a beneficiary fails to collect dividends in reality, restitution should be made by returning the right to claim the payment of dividends to the creditor. Ultimately, this is the form of demanding the debtor to notify the transfer of a dividend payment claim and the transfer of the claim to the creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da8687, Oct. 10, 1997).

Meanwhile, in cases where a third-party obligor deposits monetary claims in execution due to concurrent seizure of claims, the obligation of the third-party obligor would be extinguished, although the third-party obligor’s obligee would not actually collect the claim, but merely acquire the right to claim for payment of deposit money, and the effect of seizure remains effective against the obligor’s right to claim for payment of deposit money. Therefore, restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act should be made by transferring the right to claim for payment of deposit money to the obligee (the obligor of the lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act) instead of monetary compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da9398, Jun. 25, 2004).

Of the instant dividend claim transfer contract, the part transferred to Defendant KimA is a fraudulent act and thus should be revoked. The instant dividend claim was deposited in the FF District Court 2013 as a gold market, and Defendant KimA’s failure to receive it is as seen earlier. As such, Defendant KimA expressed its intent to transfer the right to claim the payment of deposit amounting to KRW 359,63,632 of the FF District Court 2013 to the Republic of Korea and notified the Republic of Korea of the said assignment of claim.

2) Claim for each dividend of the Defendant doorB and SCC

In cases where a beneficiary, etc., who is the assignee of a claim, already extinguished his/her claim before the assignment of claim corresponding to a fraudulent act is revoked by a creditor, etc., due to the repayment of the claim from the garnishee, etc., the creditor may, by means of restitution, claim against the beneficiary, etc. in the way of compensation for the value of money, which he/she receives as repayment along with the revocation of the assignment of claim, and the revocation creditor may claim against the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser for the payment of money or the movable property directly (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5061, Nov. 28,

Defendant LB received 239,755,755 won out of the instant dividend claim (i.e., 131,865,665 won + Defendant Sung-CC’s dividends 107,890,090 won). As seen earlier, since each part of the instant dividend claim related to Defendant LB and Sung-CC’s dividends has ceased to exist, it is reasonable to reinstate the said Defendants, who are the subsequent purchaser, by ordering compensation for value instead of returning the original claim due to revocation of the fraudulent act.

At the time of the contract for the transfer of dividends of this case, the Plaintiff’s claims for the compensation of 3,280,521,100 won are as seen earlier. Since the amount of the dividend claim of this case that the Defendants acquired by the above Defendants is 239,75,755,755 won in total and does not reach the above amount of the secured claim, the part concerning the dividends of 131,865,665 won in the contract for the transfer of dividends of this case, and the part concerning the dividends of 107,890,090 won in Sung-CC among the dividend transfer contract of this case shall be revoked. The part concerning the dividends of 131,865,665 won in lieu of the original return due to the cancellation of fraudulent act, and the Plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment on revocation of the fraudulent act of this case becomes final to the day when the judgment on revocation of this case becomes final and conclusive.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.