A. As to KRW 30,814,731 and KRW 30,132,645 among them, January 2, 2019 to February 20, 202.

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff extended a loan to Defendant C as indicated in the following table. The Plaintiff reported marriage on August 30, 2012 and January 19, 2016 on the loan principal (won) on the date of the loan, and on November 22, 2016, 30,000,000 on November 22, 2016, 30,000 on November 28, 2016, the Defendants reported marriage on May 11, 2018, and reported divorce on November 16, 2018. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17057, Nov. 28, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 17005, Apr. 30, 200; Presidential Decree No. 17000,00,000, Jul. 6, 2018>

3) On December 10, 2012, Defendant C shall provide each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(1) On December 11, 2012, the Defendants purchased the instant property, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C’s name. However, on August 9, 2018, after the Defendants reported the divorce, Defendant C transferred the instant real property to Defendant B by division of property.

The terms and conditions of the division of property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) are as follows:

(1) Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to Defendant B on August 9, 2018, based on the instant property division agreement as the grounds for registration. [Grounds for recognition] Defendants 1 through 6, 1, and 5 (each entry, including land numbers, and the purport of the entire pleadings)

B. The Plaintiff and Defendant B’s assertion that at the time of the instant property division agreement, the Defendants’ active property was KRW 430,000,000, and the Defendants’ net property was KRW 428,000. The Defendants’ net property was limited to KRW 2,00,000. According to the instant property division agreement, Defendant B acquired the ownership of the instant real property according to the instant property division agreement, and Defendant C was solely liable for the Defendant C’s liability of KRW 378,00,000,000, and the said property division constitutes a fraudulent act as it constitutes an excessive property division beyond a considerable degree. Accordingly, the instant property division agreement was revoked, and Defendant B returned the original property.