1. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant and Nonparty B made a pre-sale agreement regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty.

1. On January 18, 2017, Nonparty B delays KRW 363,289,280 in total, including global income tax of KRW 250,544,400 for the year 2012, December 31, 2012, and additional charges thereon.

B. B purchased each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) on June 10, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 31, 2013. On September 4, 2013, B accepted the mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount of KRW 85 million between Nonparty C and Haan Saemaul Depository on each of the instant real estate on June 24, 2005. On September 6, 2013, B completed the registration of change of mortgage as the debtor of the said right to collateral security.

C. B, which was the mother on October 25, 2013, promised to sell and purchase each of the instant real estate to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant trade reservation”), and on October 30, 2013, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”) as to each of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant was completed.

On October 25, 2013, the amount of secured debt of the right to collateral security in the name of the Saemaul Depository was KRW 63,000,000,00 for each of the instant real property. Since the market price of each of the instant real property was KRW 141,879,00,000 for each of the instant real property, the amount of secured debt of the general creditors among the instant real property was KRW 78,879,00 for each of the instant real property ( KRW 141,879,000 for - 63,00,000 for each of the instant real property) and each of the instant real property was the only property of KRW B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the plaintiff's claim, and changing it into money easily for consumption, at all times constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Thus, the debtor's intent of prejudice is presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser did not have bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da5420, Apr. 14, 1998).