A. From April 20, 2017 to May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff lent KRW 110,000,000 to the joint Defendant B (only hereinafter “B”) of the first instance trial.

B. On September 13, 2018, B entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant with the purchase price of KRW 300 million as stated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership to the Defendant on September 17, 2018.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found earlier prior to the existence of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, has a claim for the loan of KRW 110,000,000 against B, and thus, the said claim is subject to the creditor’s right to revocation.

B. 1) The defendant's assertion on the nominal trust claim 1) The defendant asserts that the real estate of this case is not subject to revocation of the act because it is not the liability property of B, since the mother F of this case decided to purchase the real estate of this case from G and the purchaser's name and registration as B as the purchaser's name and the F F is purchased with F's funds.

2) If the person liable for judgment completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the real estate in accordance with the title trust agreement, the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name is applied, and the above registration in the name of the debtor is null and void. Thus, since the above real estate is not owned by the debtor, it cannot be deemed as the debtor’s property subject to joint security, and even if the debtor entered into a sales contract with a third party on the above real estate and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, it cannot be deemed that the debtor’s act causes a decrease in the debtor’s responsible property, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an act detrimental to the debtor’s general creditors, and the debtor’