2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor who extended a total of KRW 27 million to E on February 2, 2018.

B. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the registration for change of ownership was completed as of January 8, 2019 by the Gangseo-gu District Court of Gwangju District (No. 201, the receipt of January 8, 2019) on the ground of the withdrawal from Gohap E (hereinafter “instant registration”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion E waives the right to the real estate stated in the separate sheet while leaving the partnership while being insolvent, and the defendant was well aware of the debt relationship as E's spouse. Thus, E's joint withdrawal should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the registration of this case must be revoked due to restitution to original state.

3. According to the above facts of recognition, the real estate listed in the attached list at the time of the Plaintiff’s loan to E was the joint property of E and the Defendant.

As to the legal relation of the partnership-ownership, if several persons own an object as a partnership body under contract, the partnership-ownership shall be limited to the whole of the partnership-ownership (Article 271(1) of the Civil Act), the rights of the partnership-ownership shall be limited to the whole of the partnership-ownership (Article 271(1) of the Civil Act). Since the consent of all the partnership-ownership is required in the disposal of the partnership-ownership property and the disposal of the shares thereof, it is legally impossible to enforce compulsory execution only by the name of debt to part of the partnership-ownership. The real estate listed in the attached list of the partnership-ownership property shall not be considered as the property attributable to the joint security of the general creditors E.

Therefore, the registration of this case, which is the sole ownership of the Defendant, the remainder of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, for which E had a joint ownership and a joint ownership, cannot be deemed as an act of reducing the liability property of E. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor, and it cannot be deemed that E had an intention of deception at the time of joint ownership.

4. Conclusion.