1. Defendant B’s KRW 37,310,587 as well as 5% per annum from February 10, 2015 to September 18, 2015, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a personal guarantee agreement (financial) with Defendant B to guarantee the reimbursement of the amount of damages incurred therefrom jointly and severally, when D, who violated all regulations, orders, and instructions while in office, or caused property damage to the Plaintiff by intention or negligence during the Plaintiff’s property. On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the second personal guarantee agreement (financial) with the same content as the second personal guarantee agreement (hereinafter “the second personal guarantee agreement”).

B. On May 4, 2011, D joined the Plaintiff and served as a middle and high trading intermediary, and died on February 2014.

C. On March 31, 2014, Defendant B entered into a gift agreement and joint-ownership agreement (hereinafter “instant gift agreement and joint-ownership agreement”) with Defendant C with respect to one-half share of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). On April 7, 2014, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendants as joint-ownership.

Defendant B owned, at the time of the instant donation agreement and joint ownership transfer registration as to each of the instant real property, an active asset worth KRW 229,050,050, the value of which was KRW 45,000,000,000, as a pro rata-gun E. However, as a small property, Defendant B owned a secured debt of KRW 40,000,000 with a maximum debt amount of KRW 21,735,000 with respect to the Yyang-gun Agricultural Cooperative, and a secured debt of KRW 21,735,00 with respect to the Rural Development Corporation, and was in excess

The issue is whether the shares of Defendant B regarding each of the instant real estate can be included in active property. However, the insolvency as a requirement for revocation of fraudulent act means that the debtor is not able to repay. In particular, if it is impossible to expect voluntary repayment, the repayment through compulsory execution should be considered. Thus, either a small property or a positive property, or a positive property, can be in line with the above purpose.