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

In the case of return of unjust enrichment by Seoul Southern District Court 2012Gadan6381 on September 3, 2012, “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,227,561 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from February 10, 2012 to August 22, 2012; the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; the amount of 330,497 won and the amount of money calculated by the rate of 330,497 won from February 17, 2012 to the day of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership or the last day of possession of C with respect to the amount of 167.6 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 39,18 won per month.” The same judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On April 13, 2016, C sold the instant real estate to the Defendant as KRW 88,00,000,000, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 22, 2016 by Seoul Western District Court Decision 20267.

On April 14, 2016, C sold to E the sales value of No. 722 of the 7th floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building at KRW 225,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future as Seoul Central District Court Registry No. 17175 of April 21, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, and thus, should be revoked. The Seoul Western District Court’s restoration to its original state as Seoul Western District Court No. 20267, Apr. 22, 2016 should be revoked.

Judgment

In case where a debtor has continuously performed several acts of disposal of property, in principle, it shall be judged whether each act causes insolvency. However, in case where there are special circumstances to see a series of acts as a single act, it shall be determined whether the overall act is harmful as a whole. Whether there is such special circumstance is the same as the other party to the disposition, whether each disposition is close to time, whether there is a special relation between the other party and the debtor, respectively.