1. The sales contract concluded on November 30, 2015 between the Defendant and B on real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. B, on April 17, 2013, concluded a credit card use agreement with the Plaintiff and received a credit card from the Plaintiff, the amount of the use was overdue.

B. B completed the registration of ownership transfer of 1/4 shares on July 20, 2015 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet, but completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 30, 2015 to the Defendant on the ground of sale.

(hereinafter) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, one fourth share of the real estate transferred to the defendant is "the instant real estate", and the sale and purchase, which is the cause of registration, in the future of the defendant, is "the instant sales contract".

The Plaintiff’s credit card payment claim against B is KRW 14,613,110 as of June 3, 2016, including the principal amount of KRW 9,167,38 as of June 3, 2016 and damages for delay.

On the other hand, the instant real estate is the only property of B, and B was insolvent at the time of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and replacing it with money easily consumed or transferring it to another person free of charge, barring special circumstances, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the creditor, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferor did not have bad faith is against the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary bears the burden of proving himself/herself that he/she was a fraudulent act. In such a case, there should be objective and objective supporting evidence that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, and the obligor’s unilateral statement or statements.