A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including Serial number), the plaintiff extended a loan of 50,000,000 won with small-certified special funds to B on June 5, 2014 on the condition of repayment of principal and interest every three years (hereinafter "the instant loan"), as of January 16, 2017, the plaintiff already concluded a contract for the sale of real estate with 50,000 won and interest and substitute payment of 1,59,917 won and the total amount of 51,59,917 won and 1,59,917 won were remaining, and Eul, the debtor of the above loan loan, concluded a contract for the sale of real estate with the defendant on July 15, 2016, which was only the only list of real estate (hereinafter "the instant real estate sale contract"), and 300,000 won and 105,0500.

According to the above facts, the sales contract of this case was deemed to be a fraudulent act by which B had already been in excess of its obligation to dispose of its own property and reduced the joint security of other general creditors. B was aware that the sales contract of this case would cause damage to the general creditors including the Plaintiff, etc., and it is presumed that the Defendant also knew of such fact.

B. The defendant's bona fide defense was not known that the sales contract of this case would prejudice the creditors B. However, it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's defense is without merit.

2. The scope of return is on the one hand.