A. Trading reservation entered into on October 28, 2010 between Defendant A and C, and

A. From around 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with C and D, and C and D lose their benefit by November 4, 201. After the Plaintiff’s subrogation, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C and D seeking reimbursement, etc. under Jeju District Court 201Gahap12. On September 22, 2011, the said court rendered a judgment on “C and D jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 641,046,932 as well as the amount of KRW 638,61,82 as well as damages incurred therefrom,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

B. C owned the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1. On October 28, 2010, Defendant A entered into a pre-sale agreement (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) with Defendant A (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under Article 65637 of the Jeju District Court’s receipt on the same day. On the same day, Defendant A entered into a new sales agreement with Defendant A (hereinafter “instant 1 sales agreement”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 16, 2010 to Defendant A as receipt No. 698555.

C. D owned the real estate listed in the separate sheet (2). On October 29, 2010, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant secondary sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant B as the receipt date of Jeju District Court No. 66077 on the same day.

C and D were in excess of obligations at the time of the above legal act, and they are in a relationship of relationship with the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, witness D's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff’s promise to sell and purchase the instant case and the sales contract of the instant case No. 1, and D’s secondary sales contract of the same status as that of the instant case are fraudulent acts detrimental to the general creditor, and thus, it should be revoked.

B. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case filed by Defendant A after one year from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the cause of revocation.