1.(a)

A sales contract concluded on May 7, 2015 between B and the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) Nonparty B entered into a credit card agreement with Nonparty Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. around 2006, and thereafter purchased goods and services on credit from that time, and made cash services and credit card loans, etc. (2) around July 2015, Nonparty B entered into a debt amounting to KRW 20 million with respect to Hyundai Card Co., Ltd.

3) A Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. transferred the above claim against B to the Plaintiff on or around July 2015, and the Plaintiff transferred the above claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on or around May 2016. B. On May 7, 2015, B entered into a sales contract to sell a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet, which is registered in that name, to the Defendant, his/her father, and on the same day, completed the transfer of ownership registration completed as of May 7, 2015 with the receipt0357 of the vehicle registration office, which was completed as of May 7, 2015, to the Defendant on the same day. (In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 6 and 7

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Monetary claims against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor B are preserved claims against the fraudulent act.

Next, it is recognized that B entered into a sales contract with the defendant, his/her father, in the status of excess of his/her obligation, on the motor vehicles listed in the attached list of his/her own name, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, and in consideration of the above family relationship between B and the defendant.

Therefore, the above sales contract between B and the defendant should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the defendant has a duty to restore the original state to B to cancel the registration of transfer of the above automobile.

B. The defendant asserts that this does not constitute a fraudulent act since he actually paid and purchased money to the plaintiff.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant is found to have remitted to B KRW 2.7 million on November 21, 2012, and KRW 1.8 million on March 11, 2013, but it is recognized that it was before two to three years of the above sales contract and the transfer registration.