A. On December 29, 200 and March 31, 2003, C concluded each insurance contract with the Defendant listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each insurance contract of this case”).

B. On November 2, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with C, who is the husband, to change the policyholder and the beneficiary, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract for change of the name”) as shown in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto, and approved the change.

C. C was granted a loan of KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff on November 25, 2014 on December 15, 2019 upon agreement from the Plaintiff, but it was unable to repay the principal and interest of the loan after December 15, 2017 and lost the benefit due date. The remainder of the principal and interest of the loan as of November 1, 2017 is KRW 8,174,255.

As of November 1, 2017, the day immediately before the date of the instant change of name, the net amount payable out of the refund money for cancellation of each of the instant insurance contracts as of November 1, 2017 was KRW 9,885,290.

E. At the time of concluding the instant change of name, C had no particular asset, other than the refund money for cancellation, and was in excess of its liability.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the result of inquiry of fact to the head of Dongdaemun-gu in this court, the order of submission of taxation information to the North Daejeon District Tax Office of this court, the result of inquiry of fact, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts found in the establishment of a fraudulent act, the act of transferring the claim for the cancellation refund money at the cancellation of the contract of each of the insurance contracts of this case by changing the name of the contractor of each of the insurance contracts of this case to the defendant in excess of the debt amount is a fraudulent act that reduces the liability property. In light of the time of transfer, C and the defendant's personal relation, it is presumed that C's intention

As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the conclusion of the title change contract of this case was not known as a fraudulent act, but such assertion alone is reversed.