2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased a building including five parcels, including the land specified in paragraph 1 of the attached list, from D, and each building specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the attached list, from D, for KRW 1.53 billion, and paid KRW 153 billion to D the down payment.

D, however, on February 8, 2018, sold each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendants, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 23, 2018 with respect to the 7/10 of the above real estate on February 23, 2018 in Defendant B, and Defendant C with respect to 3/10.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D as Suwon District Court Sejong District Court Decision 2018Gahap185, and the above court rendered a judgment ordering that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 36 million won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from March 24, 2018 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul's assertion as to the ground of claim as to the purport of the whole pleadings, Eul sold each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is one of its own property, to the defendants and completed the registration of ownership transfer. This is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is a creditor of D, and the defendants are maliciously acting, so the above sales contract is revoked and the defendants are obligated to implement the procedure of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to each

Judgment

"Fraud" subject to creditor's right of revocation under Article 406 of the Civil Code refers to an act detrimental to the creditor by the debtor's active property reduction, increase of a negative property, thereby in excess of his/her obligation, or deepening the status of excess of obligation.

In addition, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, whether an obligor is in excess of the obligation is determined as at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da118334, Apr. 26, 2013), the burden of proof is against the obligee.