1. A divorce between the Defendant and Nonparty C on March 30, 2017 regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2 and 4 as to the existence of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty C at around 2014, the Busan District Court 2014Gahap3064, which the Plaintiff paid to Nonparty C as remuneration for tax agent services, as unjust enrichment, claiming return of KRW 350,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000).

2. The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

A. In a divorce legal principle, division of property, at the same time, contributes to the maintenance of the other party’s livelihood after liquidation and distribution of the real property that the married couple had, but at the same time, after divorce, may be divided including the nature of the benefit to compensate for the mental damage (defensive materials) incurred by the divorce by the act of the split-off. Therefore, in determining the amount and method of division of property, it is obvious that considering the amount of the property achieved by mutual cooperation between the parties and other circumstances under Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, and therefore, the division-offr is already in excess of the debt

Even if a property becomes insolvent or if a property is divided, the amount and method of the division of property may be determined, including the amount of the debt borne by the divided person and whether it has contributed to the formation of the common property. Even if the division of property becomes insolvent by the division of property and reduces the joint security against the general creditor, such division of property is the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act.