(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

B. Judgment by deeming confessions: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act (Provided, That since June 1, 2019, the statutory interest rate was 12% per annum pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings as amended from June 1, 2019, the portion of the claim for delay damages in excess thereof shall be dismissed). 2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B

A. Facts of recognition 1) Defendant A’s respective real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant A on June 22, 2018 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

(2) At June 20, 2018, Defendant A had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale on June 20, 2018 to Defendant B, who is a type of sale, and as of June 20, 2018, had been in a more debt than active property, and Defendant A had no specific property except for each of the instant real estate (valueing to KRW 78,791,800).

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 7 and 11 (including each number), the result of an order to submit taxation information to the head of Busan Young-gu, this court, the result of an order to submit each financial transaction information to the head of this court and the head of the D Information Institute, the whole purport of the pleading, and the purport of the whole

B. Unless there are special circumstances, it is readily possible for the obligor to sell and consume real estate, which is only the only property, and to change it into money for consumption. The obligor’s intent of deception, which is a subjective element of fraudulent act, refers to the perception that there is a shortage of joint collateral for claims, and thus does not require any intent or intent to prejudice the obligee. In the event that the obligor sells real estate, which is only the only property, and changes into money for which it is readily possible for the obligor to consume, the obligor’s intent to cause harm

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da2606, 2613, May 9, 1997) According to the above facts of recognition, each of the instant cases, each of which is the sole property of Defendant A while over obligation.