A. On November 30, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the co-ownership shares registered in the name of G in the F, F, 773.3 square meters on November 30, 2005 to C, the husband of the Defendant; and (b) filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price against C; and (c) filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price against D; (b) on May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment that “C shall pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 33,920,000 and KRW 20% per annum from June 14, 2014 to the date of full payment.”

(2014da13716). Although C appealed, on January 15, 2016, the Suwon District Court dismissed C’s appeal (2015Na20282), and on May 12, 2016, the final appeal was dismissed and the judgment became final and conclusive.

B. On May 12, 2015, two days before the judgment of the court of first instance, C, on May 12, 2015, which was the only property of D Co., Ltd., transferred part of the claim for the refund of deposit for the lease of D Co., Ltd. in relation to D Co., Ltd., which was the only property of D Co., Ltd., to several persons including the Defendant, and thus, C, among them, transferred the claim indicated in the attached list to the Defendant as the wife (hereinafter “instant assignment contract”), and notified D Co., Ltd of the assignment of the claim on May 13, 2015.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1 through 5 evidence, fact inquiry results of Sep. 21, 2015 against the head of Dongjak District Tax Office on September 21, 2015, the results of fact inquiry conducted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on January 27, 2016, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s above claim for the payment of the purchase-price, etc. against C becomes a preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation, and the transfer of the above claim for the refund of the lease deposit, which is its sole property, by C, to the Defendant and resulting in insolvent constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to C’s general creditors.

C As such, it is deemed that there was an awareness that the above act would prejudice the general creditors including the Plaintiff.