A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the drug wholesale business under the trade name of “N,” and C is a person who sells drugs in the trade name of “P pharmacy” in the so-called “P pharmacy.”

The Plaintiff supplied C with medicine from June 28, 2013 to November 6, 2015. As of November 6, 2015, the credit transaction amount of KRW 13,621,550 is KRW 13,621,550, and thereafter, the medicine amounting to KRW 3,06,690 is returned, and the current credit amount is KRW 10,554,860.

B. On September 15, 2015, C entered into a contract with the Defendant to donate each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant donation contract”), and as to each of the instant real estate, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) was completed on September 18, 2015 as the Daegu District Court received on September 18, 2015 from September 224477.

C. At the time of the donation of this case, C’s active property did not have any special property other than each of the instant real property (only there was small deposits), and as a small property, the small property was in excess of the debt by bearing the maximum debt amount of KRW 65,00,00 against Q credit cooperatives, the debt amount of KRW 8,380,226 against R, the debt amount of KRW 23,458,898 against S stock companies, and the debt amount of KRW 24,60,128 against T stock companies.

C The C died on November 18, 2015, and due to the renunciation of inheritance by lineal descendants, etc., the successors and the inheritance shares are as shown in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 18 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the event that a fraudulent act or an obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, if the obligor transferred real property, which is the only property of the obligor, without compensation, or provided it to some obligee as payment in kind, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da57320, May 12, 1998). Accordingly, the obligor C is in excess of the obligor’s obligation each of the instant cases.