1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on the claim for loans, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap41266, and was sentenced to a judgment that “the Nonparty Company shall jointly and severally with D, E, F, and G, and jointly pay to the Plaintiff an amount of KRW 280,00,000 per annum from July 12, 2014 to the day of full payment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.”

B. On April 15, 2014, Nonparty Company transferred to the Defendants the right to collateral security (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) established on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the sole property of which is the property indicated in the separate sheet.

C. At the time of the transfer of the above bonds, the non-party company was in excess of its obligation, and such transfer of bonds constitutes fraudulent act.

As the real estate of this case is under way with the Seoul Central District Court H, the Defendants are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the equivalent value as restitution. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the claims within the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. The revocation of a fraudulent act by judgment can be claimed by means of filing a lawsuit with a court, and cannot be asserted as an attack and defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da4859, 48605, Mar. 13, 1998). In cases where a creditor claims revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution to the original state pursuant to Article 406(1) of the Civil Act, the creditor may first claim revocation of the fraudulent act and then claim restitution to the original state later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14108, Sept. 4, 2001). However, only a claim for restitution to the original state without revocation of a fraudulent act may not be filed

There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff received a judgment ordering cancellation on the ground that it is a fraudulent act against a legal act which is the cause of the plaintiff's claim for restitution, or filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation.