1. The lease contract concluded on May 15, 2014 between the Defendant and B is revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 185,00,000 per annum to B by setting the agreed interest rate of KRW 9.5% per annum, the overdue interest rate of KRW 24.5% per annum, and the due date of repayment as of April 30, 2015, respectively. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff set the right to collateral security, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 240,50,000, total debt amount per annum.

B. On May 15, 2014, B entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, and the lease period of the instant real estate from June 27, 2014 to June 27, 2016.

The defendant delivered the instant real estate at that time, and completed the move-in report.

C. B’s property details at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement are as follows.

The creditor's debt amount of the real estate of this case 195,00,000, 185,337,054 of the real estate of this case as 195,000,054 D 10,000,383,000 Seoul Guarantee Fund 419,000,000 Seoul Guarantee Fund 20,383,000 C 50,000 D 34,236,8211,000,000, 426,375,875/375/ [founded grounds] of this case's debt amount, the purport of Gap evidence 1-2, as a whole, is without dispute

2. Determination

A. Since the right of priority repayment of small-sum deposit under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act grants a kind of statutory security right that can be paid in preference to claims secured by mortgages and taxes on the leased house, the debtor's act of setting up the right of lease under the above Article with respect to the only house owned by the debtor in excess of the debt constitutes an act that causes a decrease in the debtor's whole property as a security in excess of the debt, and therefore the act of establishing the right of lease is subject to revocation of fraudulent act.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da50771 delivered on May 13, 2005).

In this case, considering the above facts in light of the above legal principles, B, who was in excess of the debt, is the defendant.