1. As to each motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet:

A. On March 26, 2014 between the Defendant and Nonparty B, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On November 22, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned 20 million won to Nonparty B, 48 months of the loan period, 11.9% per annum, 23.9% per annum of the overdue interest rate, and 20 million won per month of the repayment method.

(2) B lost the benefit of May 1, 2014 due to its failure to perform its duty to repay in full, but the unpaid principal amount reached KRW 19,349,610 at the time.

B. (1) B, around March 201, acquired a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “motor vehicle 1”), and a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “motor vehicle 2”), around January 2007, as indicated in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”).

(2) On March 26, 2014, the Defendant registered the transfer of each of the instant vehicles in its name on the grounds of “party transaction transfer” (hereinafter “each of the instant transfer contracts”).

C. B was insolvent at the time of each transfer agreement of this case, and each of the instant automobiles was the only property with the collateral ownership of B.

The defendant is the spouse B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 3-1, 2, Gap 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to whether the obligee’s right of revocation is exercised:

A. (1) With respect to the establishment of fraudulent act, etc., the Plaintiff may exercise the obligee’s right of revocation as a creditor of the loan against B for the purpose of preserving the above claim.

(2) Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the debtor's act of transferring the only property with collateral to another person under insolvent is presumed to be a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances.

B The act of entering into each of the instant transfer contracts with the Defendant, a spouse, and making a registration of transfer of each of the instant vehicles, which is the only property with collateral effect in insolvency, is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a creditor, and the intention of the Defendant’s death.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loan claim against B.