1. As to motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on March 2, 2012 between the Defendant and B (C).

1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Eul on March 25, 201, setting forth 129,08,985 won of the leased principal, 36 months of the lease period, 4,213,90 won of the monthly lease rate, 10.8% of the lease interest rate, 25% of the overdue interest rate, and Eul entered into the lease agreement from July 2012. The plaintiff terminated the above lease agreement on December 21, 2012. The debt under the above lease agreement was totaled KRW 85,246,947 won, Eul entered into the lease agreement with the defendant on March 2, 2012, which was the date of the conclusion of the lease agreement with the defendant on the attached list No. 129,246,985 won, and the date of the conclusion of the contract with the defendant on the transfer of the automobile (hereinafter referred to as "transfer contract").

2. According to the above-mentioned facts and each of the evidence mentioned above, B may be recognized as having already been absent from the status of excess of obligations at the time of concluding the contract for the transfer of transaction between the parties of this case.

B concluded a contract for the transfer of the instant automobile, which is the only property in excess of the debt, to the Defendant, and barring any special circumstance, this constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of selling the instant automobile belonging to the general creditor’s property and making use of it easily, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed.

Therefore, the contract for the transfer of the party transaction of this case shall be cancelled by fraudulent act, and the defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of the transfer of the name as stated in Paragraph 1 of this case to B with regard to the motor vehicle of this case.