Defendant A and C have concluded on May 11, 2017 with respect to the share of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the attached list.

A. C on August 2, 2011, the same month after a donation to D of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”)

5. The registration of ownership transfer was completed.

B. On February 2012, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation, etc. of the above gift contract on the instant real estate against D, etc. by Jeju District Court 2012Gahap439, and as a result, the said gift contract was revoked by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da68368 Decided December 24, 2014, and the judgment ordering the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate became final and conclusive.

Accordingly, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd (Subrogation) filed for cancellation of the registration based on the above final judgment, and on April 14, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer in D related to the instant real estate was cancelled.

C. On April 2012, according to the credit guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement against C, which jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation for indemnity against the Plaintiff, with the Seoul Central District Court 2012dan503984. On September 5, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment ordering C to pay KRW 1,142,43,244 and its delay damages jointly and severally with the Sejong District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 8 of the same year.

C On May 11, 2017, with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the instant real estate, the Defendant A, his spouse, completed the registration of ownership transfer due to donation, and on May 17, 201, the remaining portion of 1/2 of the instant real estate, the registration of the right to claim the transfer of shares was completed to Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional evidence), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, which included the facts as seen earlier and evidence Nos. 3 and 4 prior to the establishment of a fraudulent act, C shall be deemed to be the Defendants in excess of the obligation.