1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant purchased one half of the instant real estate from C (hereinafter referred to as the “sale in this case”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate on January 22, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff had monetary claims of KRW 180,000,000 against C before January 21, 2015, and C had no specific property other than each of the instant real property at the time of the instant transaction.

C. The Defendant purchased shares of the co-owners of the instant real estate including C in KRW 1,120,00,000, and the market price of each of the instant real estate was a total of KRW 1,233,874,825 at the time of the instant sale.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser D by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings (including documentary evidence number)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of his own, and replacing it with money easily consumed or transferring it to another person without compensation, is a fraudulent act against the creditor unless there are special circumstances, and the debtor's intent of prejudice is presumed, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferor did not have bad faith is the beneficiary.

Therefore, as recognized earlier, selling each of the instant real estate, which is the sole property of C, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a creditor, barring any special circumstance, and C’s intent to commit suicide is recognized, and the Defendant’s malicious intent is presumed to be a beneficiary. Therefore, the instant sales contract concluded between C and the Defendant should be revoked, barring any special circumstance, and restitution should be made following such revocation.

B. The defendant's defense asserted that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim because he did not know that C was in excess of his obligation at the time of the sale of this case.

The above evidence shall be evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8.