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

A. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D with Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Da16366, and rendered a judgment on November 22, 2012, that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 50,000,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 9, 2012 to the date of full payment.” On May 10, 2013, the decision became final and conclusive that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 by May 31, 2013.”

B. Meanwhile, on July 5, 2012, D entered into a trade promise with the Defendants to sell and purchase shares of 1/2 with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant promise”) with the Defendant, who is the husband of the Defendant B and ASEAN, and completed the registration of ownership transfer claim under the receipt of No. 44180 on July 6, 2012, with respect to each of the shares of 1/2 shares in the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon District Court’s ASEAN Branch Office, as to each of the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a fraudulent act against D’s creditors, including the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendants should cancel the registration of each ownership transfer claim against the Plaintiff due to restitution to its original state.

3. Each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as a result of the instant trade reservation, became insufficient to secure the creditors, including the plaintiff, for claims against D including the plaintiff.

It is difficult to recognize that the joint security already in a state of shortage was more deficient than one story, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4. All of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.