2. Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s KRW 100,000,000 and this shall apply thereto.

Plaintiff

A is the children of Plaintiff B, and Defendant C is the husband of Plaintiff B’s husband’s net F.

Defendant C operated a large restaurant in the real estate on the land of 18 lots, including Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G large scale 59m2, and also operated a game room and PC room.

On September 25, 192, Defendant C purchased 1/2 shares of Nonparty H, his wife, and the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 on September 25, 1992, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and completed the construction of a building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real property”) on the ground of the land, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on November 29, 193 each 1/2 shares.

Plaintiff

On February 24, 2005 and February 25, 2005, A lent a total of KRW 100 million to Defendant C upon the request of Defendant C, which is a delivery of business funds.

Plaintiff

A on January 18, 2007, extended KRW 200 million to Defendant C, and on the same day, the said Defendant entered into a promissory note with a face value of KRW 300 million.

On January 24, 2008, Defendant C and H completed the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of all co-owners' shares based on the purchase and sale reservation made on June 30, 2006, and completed the transfer registration of all co-owners' shares based on the above provisional registration on February 19, 2009.

Plaintiff

B On November 9, 2009, on the loan of KRW 100 million to Defendant C, and on June 30, 2010, the loan certificate was drawn up.

Defendant D (Defendant C’s wife) purchased each of the instant real estate from E on May 31, 2010 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 3, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6-1 and 2, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the claim for revocation of fraudulent act against defendant D and restoration to original state, as the creditor of the loan against defendant C, the plaintiff Gap is the subsequent purchaser of each of the real estate of this case, with the revocation of the sales contract as of February 19, 2009 and restoration to original state.