1. The Defendant and B entered into on October 6, 2015 with respect to one-third share of 2547 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun.
1. The plaintiff's claim against B: According to the statements in Gap's evidence No. 1 to No. 4, the existence of preserved claim against B, occurrence of credit guarantee accident, payment by subrogation of the plaintiff, etc. is recognized as shown in paragraph (1) of the attached Form No. 1.
2. B Fraudulent act;
A. On August 7, 2014, a third share in D, B, and E (F) was registered on August 7, 2014 for the pertinent land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).
[A] On August 22, 2014, F obtained a loan of KRW 200 million from a criminal agricultural cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the “agricultural cooperative”) on the instant land as security, and thereafter made a registration of establishment of a collateral of KRW 260 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million on the same day.
[A] At the time, B and D offered their shares among the land of this case as a physical guarantee.
B, on October 6, 2015, immediately before the occurrence of the credit guarantee accident as seen earlier, concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for 100 million won with respect to one-third portion of the instant land, which is the only property of the Defendant.
 The purport of the argument as a whole: Provided, That the defendant did not actually pay the purchase price to B, and the condition of accepting the collateral security obligation, which was established on the land of this case.
At the time, the market price of the instant land is equivalent to KRW 356,580,000,000, and the amount equivalent to one third of the shares is equivalent to KRW 11,8860,000.
[Written Appraisal] On October 7, 2015, the registration of transfer of ownership of shares was completed on October 6, 2015 with respect to one-third portion of the land in this case on the ground of sale as of October 6, 2015.
[A] At the time of the closing of the argument in this case, no evidence exists that the Defendant actually acquired the aforementioned collateral security obligation.
[The purport of the entire pleadings] Meanwhile, while the Defendant alleged as the wife of “G” rather than B, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the judgment of 2015No64246 decided October 25, 2016 completed the fact-finding by the Defendant as “B’s spouse,” the debtor of the instant case.
This Court is well-grounded.