(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 the defendant B

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10-2, 3, and 3.

(1) Defendant A was loaned KRW 50 million with corporate purchase funds on June 22, 2015.

(2) Meanwhile, on the same day, the registration of cancellation was completed on June 23, 2015 as of the right to collateral security, which was established on the first floor (hereinafter “instant apartment”) No. 102, 3, and 5, out of Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, which was Defendant A’s wife (hereinafter “instant apartment”), as to the right to collateral security, which was located on the part of Defendant B, the National Bank of Korea, the debtor B, and the maximum debt amount of 101,40,000, as of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant apartment”). As to the right to collateral security, the registration of cancellation was completed on the same day as of June 23, 2015, on the ground that the alteration contract was concluded on June 23, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant A donated KRW 50 million to Defendant B on June 23, 2015, which was loaned for the purpose of corporate purchase fund, to ensure that the registration of reduction of collateral security and the registration of cancellation thereof should be completed as above.

The fact that Defendant A entered into the above donation contract with Defendant B in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the above donation contract should be revoked by fraudulent act, and Defendant B has the obligation to return KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff, a creditor of Defendant A, to its original state.

C. The Plaintiff asserts that the gift contract for KRW 50 million concluded on June 23, 2015 between the Defendants was a fraudulent act, and thus, whether the gift contract was concluded as alleged by the Plaintiff is first examined.

However, Gap evidence No. 9 and Gap evidence No. 10 submitted by the plaintiff.