(a) Indication of claims: Entry of the reasons for the claim in attached Form;

(b) Grounds: Judgment without holding any pleadings;

2. As to Defendant Bohren Co., Ltd.

A. The Plaintiff sought revocation of the fraudulent act as stated in the attached Form No. 4 against the above Defendant, and the Defendant asserted that the period of exclusion has expired one year. However, according to the evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the Daegu District Court notified Nonparty A of a summary order of KRW 7 million as a crime of fraud against the instant automobile on December 31, 2012. The instant lawsuit was filed on December 20, 2013, which was within one year thereafter, and the said defense is groundless.

B. The above defendant asserts that he was unaware of the fact that the automobile sales contract of this case was a fraudulent act. If the debtor's act objectively constitutes a fraudulent act, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser's bad faith is presumed, and the burden of proving that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser acted in good faith at the time of the juristic act is against the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da6711, Feb. 13, 1998; 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). Thus, the above defendant did not submit any evidence to prove it, and thus, the defendant's bad faith is recognized.

3. Full acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim.