1. On April 2, 2012, it was concluded on April 2, 2012 between Samwon Steel Co., Ltd and the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for performance guarantee with the same machinery company, and Samwon Steel Co., Ltd. jointly and severally guaranteed the said guarantee insurance contract.

However, upon occurrence of an insured incident, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds to the insured on May 10, 2012, May 11, 2012, May 201, 2012, June 8, 2012, and August 31, 2012, and received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff by filing a lawsuit claiming three of the total amount of principal amount of KRW 1,347,318,934 against Sam Steel Co., Ltd.

(No. 2014 Ghana, No. 1446, 1330, 1453) b.

On April 2, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with Samwon Steel Co., Ltd. under which the ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is transferred from Samwon Steel Co., Ltd. as a substitute payment for part of the Defendant’s claim for construction price against Samwon Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate as the receipt of No. 17627 on April 2, 2012 by the court.

C. The Samwon Steel Co., Ltd was in excess of its obligation at the time of the instant sales contract.

On December 10, 2013, the Namwon Saemaul Community Fund, a mortgagee of the instant real estate, applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate, and the sale was completed on the date of distribution implemented on January 6, 2014 (this court C), and the Defendant received the total amount of the dividend on January 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers), the fact inquiry results on the judicial assistant officers of the Chuncheon District Court's original branch, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The existence of the preserved claim should, in principle, be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation prior to the obligor doing a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that the obligor would prejudice the obligee. However, there is a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim was established at the time of the juristic act.