1. On September 5, 2015, the automobile indicated in the separate sheet between the defendant and the non-party B was concluded.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B purchased an automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”), and borrowed 24% per annum from the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015, with interest rate of KRW 82 million, 60 months during the loan period, and with interest and interest equal repayment (monthly payment amount of KRW 1,619,830) (hereinafter “the instant automobile”). As a security, B created a mortgage on the instant automobile amounting to KRW 16.4 million.

B. B paid KRW 8,263,206 (five-minutes) out of the above loans, and thereafter, paid KRW 76,191,939 as principal until now.

C. Meanwhile, between September 5, 2015 and B, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with regard to the instant motor vehicle with a claim amounting to KRW 60 million (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”), and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on September 9, 2015.

B, on January 7, 2016, the Chuncheon District Court rendered 2016 Manung Branch Branch98, filed an application for individual rehabilitation, etc., and accordingly, did not have any specific property other than the instant vehicle and was in the de facto excess of the obligation.

E. Meanwhile, around September 9, 2015, the market price of the instant vehicle around September 9, 2015 was KRW 81 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 8 (including each number in the case of additional number), appraiser D's appraisal result, inquiry results about the Court Administration Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the recognition as above, the Plaintiff had a claim for loans equivalent to KRW 76,191,939 against B and damages for delay. In this regard, even though the Plaintiff was granted a mortgage of KRW 16,40,000 on the instant automobile, the obligee’s right of revocation is recognized on the remainder of the claim, which remains after deducting the amount of preferential repayment from the security, and thus, the Plaintiff’s remaining claims for loans against B constitute the preserved claim in the lawsuit of revocation of fraudulent act.

I would like to say.

(b)the intent to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;