The sales contract concluded on December 13, 2018 between the Defendant and B with respect to the area of 484 square meters in the Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun.

On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100,000,00 to D Co., Ltd. (Evidence 1) and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation to the Plaintiff.

(No. 3). The balance of the above loans as of October 1, 2019 is KRW 91,498,704.

(A) On December 13, 2018, Party B sold the land listed in Section 1 of the Order (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Defendant in KRW 29,200,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 2018.

(B) At the time of the above sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). At the time of the above sales contract, “B” had positive property in addition to the instant land, E-to-face 509 square meters (in fact inquiry reply on March 30, 2020), and the appraised value is KRW 43,265,00.

(No. 5) Therefore, the sum of the active property value of the above B is KRW 72,465,00, which is insufficient to repay the principal debt of KRW 85,870,00 (Evidence No. 4) to the Plaintiff.

And B seems to have been responsible for the F Card, G, Enterprise Bank, Korea Technology Finance Corporation, etc. around that time.

(2) The sales contract of this case deepens the shortage of joint collateral against the general creditors of B by selling and consuming real estate in money, and thus, it is reasonable to see that the sales contract of this case deepens the shortage of joint collateral against the general creditors of B. In light of the property status of B, the intention to commit a fraudulent act should be recognized.

Therefore, the sales contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in Paragraph (2) of this case to restore B to its original state.

As to this, the defendant alleged that he did not know that he would prejudice the creditor B as the sales contract of this case, but it is difficult to recognize this only by the evidence submitted by the defendant.