A. On September 26, 2012, the Defendant and C jointly purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at KRW 660,000,000 for the introduction of marriage information companies around November 201, and subsequently completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on the instant apartment on December 5, 2012.

B. Meanwhile, on April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,000 to C at interest rate of 30% per annum, and on September 30, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”) C.

However, on August 1, 2014, C donated 1/2 shares of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant equity”) to the Defendant, the sole property of which is the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer accordingly on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant donation”) D.

On the other hand, on August 25, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C on a claim for divorce, etc. with the District Court Decision 2014Ddan9572, and divorced on October 16, 2014, and thereafter sold the instant apartment to D on June 9, 2015 at KRW 680,000,000.

In the case of other apartment units in the same square complex within the apartment complex of this case, the price of May 2014, which is KRW 750,000,000 (five stories) for the transfer of the gift contract of this case, and the price of KRW 650,00,000 for January 1, 2015 (two stories), which is after the donation contract of this case, is KRW 640,000 for the price of February 2, 2015 (one story), and the price of KRW 760,00,000 for April 20, 2015 (4 stories) for each transaction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 9, 11, 19, 21 through 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of recognition of the establishment of a fraudulent act, C donated the instant shares, which are the only property of the Defendant, one of its wife, under the condition that C bears the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff. This is prejudicial to the obligee such as the Plaintiff.