The defendant and the non-party C signed on August 19, 2016 on the motor vehicles listed in the attached Table 2.

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor of C who prepared each of the following authentic deeds with Nonparty C:

(1) On November 28, 2016, No. 570, No. 2016, No. 570, No. 2016: (a) No. 195,000, No. 19000, Mar. 1, 2016; and (b) No. 16,250,000 shall be repaid in installments by a notary public to the Plaintiff as of March 1, 2016.

(1) Doshe, a notary public, on December 6, 2016: (a) 300,000,000 won, as of March 1, 2016; and (b) Doshe, as of March 1, 2016; and (c) C, to make installment payments in 25,000,000 won, as of March 1, 2016, to the Plaintiff.

(b).

C With respect to automobiles listed in the attached Table 2. A, the sole property of which was the only property around August 19, 2016, including the above debt against the Plaintiff as well as the debt against other creditors (hereinafter “automobile in this case”), as to the “transfer of party transaction”, the Defendant, his wife, on the ground of the party transaction, registered the transfer of ownership to the receipt D on August 19, 2016 of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.

C. The above "transfer of party transaction" is only the cause of the transfer recorded in the register of automobiles, and there is no fact that C and the defendant have paid the price in connection with the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant automobiles.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, C is deemed to have committed a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, the obligee, by transferring the instant vehicle, which is the only property in excess of its obligation, to the Defendant. Thus, the agreement between the Defendant and C on August 19, 2016 regarding the instant vehicle between the Defendant and C on the “party transaction transfer” shall be revoked, and the Defendant shall be obliged to perform the procedure of cancellation of the registration of the transfer of name of the said vehicle by restitution.

Although the defendant asserts that he also has a claim against C, the above argument does not affect the judgment as to whether the plaintiff's fraudulent act is a fraudulent act.