A. The Plaintiff respectively lent Defendant B KRW 50 million on September 19, 2014, and KRW 5 million on January 25, 2016.

B. The real estate listed in the attached list was owned D, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 11, 2015 on the grounds of sale on December 23, 2014, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 29, 2016 on the grounds of sale on February 29, 2016. In other words, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 11, 2016, Defendant C’s Republic of Korea, Defendant B’s Republic of Korea on March 11, 2016.

C. At the time of the above sale among the Defendants, the said real estate was the sole property of Defendant B, and is presumed to have been worth KRW 140 million (no assertion and proof were made as to the fact that there was a change in the value during the lapse of one year and two months, and the Defendant C reported the transaction value to KRW 120 million). Meanwhile, the Defendant B set up a right to collateral security of KRW 112.5 million on the said real estate, and obtained loans from the National Bank, with the amount of KRW 93.8 million from the National Bank, and was in excess of the obligation at the time due to the Plaintiff’s burden of the instant loan liability of KRW 55 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the loan claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 55,00,000 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from August 20, 2016 to the date of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the Plaintiff.

3. Claim for obligee's right of revocation;

A. According to the above facts, the cancellation of the sale and restitution (1) of the above real estate, which was the only property of Defendant B, in excess of the debt, to Defendant C, and thus, there is a shortage of common creditors’ joint security. Thus, the above sale and purchase is a fraudulent act against creditors including the Plaintiff.

It is reasonable to view that Defendant B, the debtor, was aware that he would thereby prejudice the general creditors such as the plaintiff, etc., and the intention of the defendant C, the beneficiary, is presumed to be the intention of the death of the beneficiary.

(ii).