1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is all dismissed.

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

In a case where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation ought to be determined based on whether the act ultimately constitutes an act detrimental to general creditors, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the weight of the debtor’s entire responsible property in the context of a fraudulent act; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the justification and means of economic purpose of a juristic act; (d) the reasonableness of the act in question; (e) the reasonableness of the act’s economic purpose and its means of realization; and (e) the degree of the party’s awareness of risks

(1) In cases where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation provides his/her own real estate to any one of the creditors, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, but it is the best way for a debtor to continue his/her business by financing funds in a situation in which it is difficult to continue his/her business due to financing, and where the debtor provided real estate as security to a specific creditor and received new funds additionally from him/her, barring any special circumstance, the debtor’s act of creation of security right does not constitute a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da5015, May 8, 2001; 201Da93746, 93753, Mar. 27, 2014; 2015Da3905, Sept. 23, 2016).

Gap 2, 4, and 201.3.