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

A. On November 22, 2011, Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) concluded a construction contract with the Plaintiff on the condition that the payment of the construction cost shall be paid at KRW 231,00,000 for the Changyang Construction among the New Construction Works in Namyang-ju and the completed portion of the payment shall be paid at the end of the following month after the end of each month.

B. On December 201 and January 2012, 201, the Plaintiff completed the said construction and claimed for the payment of the construction price to the Nonparty Company, but was paid only part of it, and was not paid KRW 43,578,800 among them.

C. On February 6, 2012, the non-party company entered into a sales contract with the Defendant by setting the sales price of KRW 2.5 million with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant apartment”). On April 4, 2012, the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) was completed on April 4, 2012 by the Daejeon District Court Daejeon District Court Daejeon District Office as the receipt of No. 7445.

On the other hand, the defendant is the representative director of the non-party company E.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2 and 4, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main purport of the parties’ assertion is to conclude a sales contract with the Defendant on February 6, 2012 in collusion with the Plaintiff, etc., knowing that the Nonparty Company would prejudice its creditors, including the Plaintiff, for the purpose of evading its obligations against the Plaintiff in excess of its obligations.

4. 4. The above sales contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant asserts that the non-party company has a duty to cancel the registration of ownership transfer as a reinstatement.

On February 6, 2012, the Defendant did not remain insolvent and paid the unpaid construction cost with the purchase price or used it as the company’s operating fund. As such, the instant sales contract cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act.