1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. On November 20, 2014, between the Defendant and Nonparty B, respectively.

On June 21, 2013, the non-party Synova Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Synova Loan") transferred claims 25,243,538 to the plaintiff, and the non-party 2 bank transferred claims 7,334,074 to the plaintiff on June 28, 2013, and notified the plaintiff of the assignment of claims 7,334,074, respectively, and notified the transfer of claims to B and reached B around that time.

The principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s claim against B are as follows:

B On November 20, 2014, on the donation of each real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) to the Defendant, who is his/her own relative resident, on November 20, 2014, and No. 1-b of the order on November 21, 2014.

Each registration of ownership transfer entered in the port was completed.

B is not only the time of the gift contract of this case but also the present state of excess of obligations.

【Legal act which is the object of revocation of creditor’s establishment of a fraudulent act by means of the entire descriptions and arguments of Gap’s 1 through 5 (including each number), and the fact that there is no dispute, the legal act which is the object of revocation of creditor’s establishment of a fraudulent act refers to an act detrimental to creditor’s property, and it means an act of the debtor’s property act that causes a decrease in his/her general property to the joint security of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Da634, Jan. 15, 1962). B, as seen earlier, at the time of the instant donation agreement, the passive property exceeds the positive property.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s donation of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act by reducing the debtor’s general property and causing the shortage of joint security, and the Defendant’s intention of deception B, an obligor, is sufficiently recognized.

According to the theory of the lawsuit, the contract of donation of this case is revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is restored to the original state.

There is an obligation to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership as described in the paragraph.

The defendant's argument is judged.