1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B was loaned KRW 200 million from one bank under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee on November 2, 2006.

As the Plaintiff caused a credit guarantee accident, on September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 158,144,360 to the Han Bank as the principal and interest of the loan was paid by subrogation.

B. On September 15, 2005, B created the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) of KRW 27 million with respect to D’s 81.9/1911 shares (No. 18, No. 23.4/191 shares and No. 58.5/191 shares of Gu No. 20, Gu No. 188.5/1911 shares) among the Daegu-gu Daegu-gu 300.8 square meters, and thereafter, the Defendant entered the additional registration prior to the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with the Daegu District Court No. 69762, Apr. 28, 2016, on April 25, 2016.

C. At the time of the transfer of the instant right to collateral security, B had a property of 106 square meters (individually announced land price of 91,700 square meters / square meters) with property, but was in excess of debt due to financial debt exceeding KRW 900 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), each fact inquiry results on Daegu Metropolitan City and the Korea Credit Information Institute, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the act of transferring the right to collateral security of this case to the defendant on the ground of a conclusive claim transfer contract is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff who acquired the right to claim reimbursement against B by subrogation under a credit guarantee agreement.

(2) As to this, the Defendant is the motive of the Defendant’s husband F’s elementary school, and the Defendant lent business funds to B, and only received the instant collateral transfer due to the repayment of the loan, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to harm.

B. (1) Determination is that an obligee’s claim for the repayment of an obligation should not be obstructed due to the existence of another obligee as a natural exercise of his/her right, and the obligor is also obliged to perform the obligation according to the nature of the obligation.