1. Property division concluded between the Defendant and Nonparty C on June 30, 2016 regarding real estate indicated in the separate sheet.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the facts acknowledged as Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 10, the fact-finding results to the Gangseo-gu Office of this court, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty C seeking the payment of unjust enrichment with Seoul Southern District Court 2015 Ghana169430, and received a favorable judgment (hereinafter the instant judgment) stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 3, 2015 to the date of full payment.”

B. Nonparty C, the husband of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter in this case’s real estate), which is one of his sole responsible property in excess of the debt, completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer as of June 30, 2016, which was received on June 30, 2016.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty C made a promise of donation with the Defendant regarding the instant real estate, the sole responsible property, in excess of his/her obligation, immediately after the instant judgment was rendered, and based thereon, completed the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership against the Defendant, who is the obligee, constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, thereby seeking the revocation of the said promise of donation and the restoration thereof.

B. Since Nonparty C’s assertion is unable to maintain marital life any longer due to Nonparty C’s habitual external stay and booming life, the Plaintiff’s promise to donate the instant real estate for the purpose of divorce and division of property, and thereafter filed a divorce lawsuit after completing the registration of ownership transfer claim, such act does not constitute a fraudulent act.

C. If the obligor’s act of offering security to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act objectively, the obligee is presumed to have acted in bad faith, so unless the beneficiary proves that he had acted in good faith at the time of the juristic act, the obligee shall cancel the juristic act and restore the original state accordingly.