1. As to shares in attached real estate 1/2:

A. A donation contract concluded on July 21, 2016 between the Defendant and C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 6, 2014, the Defendant and C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one-half shares of the apartment units listed in the separate sheet as married couple and one-half shares.

B. C and D agreed to jointly engage in wholesale and retail business, such as clothes, miscellaneous articles, and cosmetics on May 3, 2016.

C. Around May 2016, D bears the obligation to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 63,000,000 against the Plaintiff.

D proposed that it be lent to the Plaintiff as funds for the business run with C, instead of returning it, and C prepared a notarial deed on June 10, 2016, stating that it borrowed KRW 63,000,000 from the Plaintiff on August 30, 2016 as the due date for repayment was set and borrowed on August 30, 2016 (No. 754, 2016, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

C On July 21, 2016, upon entering into a contract (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) under which the Defendant donates 1/2 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) out of the real estate stated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant shares”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the Defendant on the same day.

E. At the time of entering into the instant gift agreement, C was the sole property of C, and due to the transfer of the instant shares, C became insolvent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, Eul evidence No. 1 (including a branch number), and the court's order to submit financial transaction information to the Korea Credit Information Institute, the whole purport of the arguments, as a whole.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is deemed to have a claim of KRW 63,00,000 against C, and the donation contract of this case, which is the only property C, constitutes a fraudulent act that causes damage to the general creditors of C including the plaintiff, and it is presumed that C's intention to commit suicide and the defendant's fraudulent act is malicious.

Therefore, this case, unless there are special circumstances.