(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. Facts 1) The Plaintiff, upon occurrence of a preserved claim, has a loan claim against Defendant C as stated in the separate sheet for claim, and the amount of the loan claim was as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article. 2) The real estate listed in the separate sheet for registration of ownership transfer in Defendant D was originally owned by E. The Defendants purchased KRW 70 million on October 23, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2017, respectively. However, the ownership transfer registration was completed in Defendant C’s name on June 20, 2018 for shares owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the donation of the instant real estate to Defendant D in excess of his/her debt constitutes a fraudulent act, while Defendant D asserts that the instant real estate was transferred to himself/herself as a division of property according to divorce, so the instant donation contract does not constitute a fraudulent act.

C. In light of the fact that the division of property following the divorce 1 is a liquidation of the common property formed through mutual cooperation between the parties during the marriage, which has the nature of support to the other party, the division of property is a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance to deem that the division of property is excessive beyond the considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, even though the debtor in excess of his/her obligation gets divorced and transfers a certain property to his/her spouse as a result of the reduction of joint security against the general creditor.