A. On April 30, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) on July 30, 201, lent KRW 30 million to C by setting the due date on July 30, 201 and at the rate of 12% per annum.

B. On April 29, 2013, C entered into a gift agreement (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) with the Defendant who is his/her spouse with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) on April 29, 2013, and thereafter, C completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) on April 30, 2013 as the receipt No. 8418 of the permanent registry office of the Daegu District Court (hereinafter “instant permanent registry office”).

122,148,200 231,148,200 ,200 ,200 , 200 , 302 , 109,000 , 1221,082, 100 , and 121,082,00 , and 30,000 , and 120,000 , and 120,000 , and 120,000 , and 120,000 , are the obligation to return the lease deposit against the Plaintiff for 120,000 , respectively.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the instant donation contract, C was in excess of its obligation with positive assets less than its negative assets as listed below.

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 3, 5 through 7, 9 through 11 (including each number number), appraiser F's market price appraisal commission of appraiser F, each fact inquiry result of this court's example-gun, permanent residence, and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the court's Yong-Nam Credit Union of this court, and the result of each order to submit financial transaction information to Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings, as

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of recognition of the establishment of a fraudulent act, C has already been in excess of its obligation at the time of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, and C’s donation of each of the real estate of this case to the defendant who is the spouse of this case under the excess of its obligation constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors, including the plaintiff, unless there are

C It is deemed that this was known that it would inflict damage on the general creditors including the plaintiff.