A. On October 18, 2016, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the price of KRW 410 million as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant on the same day.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the registration of the establishment of each of the collateral obligations of the Gwangju Bank Co., Ltd., the debtor Eul was completed, and the total amount of the collateral obligations is KRW 278,33,000.

The registration of the establishment of a new mortgage was immediately cancelled when the defendant acquired ownership.

C. B was in excess of the obligation at the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, and there was no particular property other than the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff was also liable for joint and several liability exceeding KRW 350 million.

On the other hand, the market price of the instant real estate is currently different from 410 million won.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 12, including various types of numbers, and the result of tax information inquiry into the head of Gwangju North Korean Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the establishment of a fraudulent act, the act of selling the instant real estate, the sole property of which was the Defendant under excess of debt B, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, the creditor.

The defendant who received the above real estate from B is also presumed to have concluded the sales contract of this case with the knowledge of such circumstances.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he bona fide purchased the above real estate through a normal procedure without knowing the debt status of B at all.

However, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is presumed to be insufficient to believe the defendant's assertion about the process of purchasing the above real estate and the source of funds.