1. The assignment of claims made on December 10, 2015 between the Defendant and B shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. B on August 20, 2015, sold land, including C, to C (hereinafter “C”), and did not pay capital gains tax. As of July 1, 2017, as indicated below, B is in arrears with a total of KRW 731,521,690 as indicated below.

Serial 1 Gross Real Estate Tax on June 1, 2015, 201: (a) the due date for the payment of delinquent local taxes; (b) the due date for the payment of delinquent local taxes; (c) the due date for the payment of delinquent local taxes; and (d) 200 capital gains tax on December 15, 2015, 147, 780; (c) 231,670, 360; (d) 287, 209, 209; (c) the capital gains tax on August 31, 2015, 2015; (d) the capital gains tax on December 31, 2015, 2015; and (e) the total amount of delinquent local real estate tax on 31,601, 601, 60283, 017, 0604 capital gains tax on August 31, 2015;

B. On December 10, 2015, B concluded a contract on the assignment of claims with the Defendant, who is his spouse, to transfer KRW 185,000,000 (the claim stated in the attached Table; hereinafter “instant claim”) out of the sales price claim with the Defendant and C.

(hereinafter “instant assignment contract”). C.

B was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant assignment contract.

Since then, the Defendant purchased from C parcels Nos. 285,00,000 from Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, and paid 185,000,000 won in lieu of the purchase price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on June 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B donated KRW 185,00,000 by transferring the instant claim to the Defendant in excess of the obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor.

Even if B’s transfer of the instant claim to the Defendant was made for the purpose of repaying the Defendant’s obligation, this case’s claim against the Defendant, who is the spouse, with the intent of undermining B’s creditors, including the Plaintiff, in collusion with the Defendant.