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

Upon entering into a continuous monetary transaction with C on June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a notarized deed with the purport that C borrows KRW 185,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and the due date for repayment shall be June 20, 2015, and C recognizes compulsory execution when C fails to repay the said borrowed amount to the Plaintiff.

C had resided in Gunsan-si E and 105 Dong 107 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as KRW 30 million for lease deposit and KRW 200,000 for monthly rent. However, on September 8, 2015, the lessee extended the lease term, and the lessee’s name was changed from C to C at the time of C.

C At the time of changing the name of the lessee under the lease contract as above, there is no material that C had a separate property other than the claim for the refund of the lease deposit for the apartment of this case.

On June 9, 199, the defendant married with C on June 9, 199, and the agreement was married on January 7, 2016.

Between the Defendant and C, there are one male and female children, and the right of custody for the children has been held by the Defendant, and C paid 1 million won per month in child support to the Defendant.

One of the children who the defendant has the right to care has a disability of the first degree of disability (the disability type: the self-harm disorder).

C is currently not registered as a resident in the apartment of this case.

[Based on recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of claim as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, and the ground of claim as a whole, is that the transfer of the right to return the lease deposit of the apartment of this case was made as part of the division of property following the divorce between Eul and Eul, but the divorce between the Defendant and C was made for the purpose of evading the obligation, so the transfer of the right to return the lease deposit should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Even if the divorce between the defendant and C is not the most complicated, the apartment of this case is the only property C.