A. As of June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff has a claim for the purchase-price of KRW 168,660,000 to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

The joint representative director C and E of the above company jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the above commodities.

B. On July 18, 2015, C entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 500,000,000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is its sole property with the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the 21st of the same month.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, ① the registration of the provisional attachment of KRW 100,00,000 in the creditor F’s claim amount, ② the Industrial Bank of Korea of the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount of KRW 420,000,000, and ③ the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the mortgage around the mortgagee G, the maximum debt amount of KRW 69,000,000, respectively.

① On July 31, 2015, the registration of provisional seizure was revoked on August 5, 2015. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26548, Jul. 22, 2015>

E. ② The actual secured debt amounting to KRW 350,00,000 at the time of cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage near the Industrial Bank of Korea

F. At the time of the instant sales contract, the market price of the instant apartment is KRW 510,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unstrifed facts, Gap 1, 2, and 13 evidence, and the result of the response to the order to submit financial transaction information by the head of the Incheon Busan Branch of the Bank of Korea, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Unless there are special circumstances, the act of a fraudulent act C to sell the apartment of this case, the sole property of which is one of its own property, under the condition that it bears the obligation against the plaintiff, is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant's bad faith, who is C's

Although the defendant did not know that the sales contract of this case was detrimental to the creditor, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was bona fide.

The defendant.