On April 19, 2017, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) received from the Seoul Central District Court a payment order stating that “B shall pay C the amount of KRW 27,335,44 won and the amount of KRW 14,597,619 as the principal at the rate of 15% per annum from April 7, 2017 to the date of full payment (No. 17213),” and the said payment order was finalized on July 13, 2017.

On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired the above obligation from C, and C notified C of the assignment of the obligation to B on April 19, 2018.

On June 12, 2018, the Defendant donated each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) as the only property from B from B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “registration”) on June 14, 2018 by the Daegu District Court under No. 32345 on the receipt of the instant donation (hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a branch number), and the inquiry of the court administration of this Court into the Court Administration, as a result of the fact inquiry into the court administration of this Court, the plaintiff Eul asserted the purport of the whole pleadings donated the real estate of this case to the defendant, which is its sole

This should be cancelled as a fraudulent act against general creditors, and the registration of this case should be cancelled due to restitution.

Judgment

According to the fact that the existence of the preserved claim is recognized, the above claim against the plaintiff B was existing at the time of the gift contract of this case, and thus the plaintiff's above claim is the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.

According to the facts of the establishment of a fraudulent act, B donated the real estate of this case, which is its sole property, to the defendant with a remaining relationship. Barring special circumstances, B’s donation of the real estate of this case to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act by reducing the common creditors’ joint security.

In light of the timing for concluding the gift contract of this case and the financial status of B, etc.