1. The defendant shall pay 22,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from January 18, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City 401 (hereinafter "the building of this case") to lease with a lease deposit of KRW 22 million and a lease term of two years. The plaintiff had resided in the house owned before entering into the above lease contract for KRW 35 million. Upon the plaintiff's request, the above Eul transferred the house of this case to B KRW 20 million on February 16, 2013 and KRW 13 million on February 20, 2013, and KRW 7 million on March 1, 2013, and the defendant filed an application for voluntary distribution of the house of this case as a mortgagee, and the plaintiff could not receive dividends from Incheon 200,000 won on which the plaintiff could not receive dividends from the right holder, and according to the fact that the plaintiff could not receive dividends from Incheon 207,700,000 won on March 1, 2013.

In this regard, although the defendant alleged that the plaintiff is the most lessee by means of false conspiracy with B, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Meanwhile, while the Defendant asserted to the effect that the act of the obligor B, which granted the right of priority repayment to the Plaintiff and the obligee, should be revoked as a fraudulent act. However, in a case where the obligor, with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, performed a legal act for the purpose of property right, the obligee can only file a lawsuit to revoke the fraudulent act with the court, and it cannot be asserted as an attack and defense method in the lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 95Da8393 Decided July 25, 1995).