1. Of the vehicles listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B, 9/100 shares were concluded on July 15, 2013.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. A. On May 24, 2013, the existence B of the preserved claim received a loan of KRW 29,00,000 from the Plaintiff at interest rate of KRW 6.9% per annum, interest rate of KRW 24%, and repayment period of KRW 48 months. As of July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff lost its benefit by failing to pay the principal and interest at a fixed deadline. The obligation of KRW 24,15,69, interest rate of KRW 652,709, compensation for delay remains.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5

B. The automobiles listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) are the automobiles indicated in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

(B) Of the 99/100 shares B, 1/100 shares B, C, the wife of B, respectively. However, on July 15, 2013, B and C concluded a contract to create a mortgage on the instant automobile to the Defendant on the same day, and on the same day, the fact that the mortgage creation registration for the instant automobile was completed on July 15, 2013 as the mortgagee and the bond value of the 30,000,000 won was under receipt No. 01919, Gwangju Metropolitan City Mine-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, does not conflict between the parties. (2) The result of the fact inquiry to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this Court, the fact inquiry to the head of the Seodaemun-gu District Tax Office of Gwangju Metropolitan City, according to the results of the fact inquiry to the head of the Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, the fact that B did not have any other property except for the share of 99/100 among the instant automobiles around July 15,

3) Therefore, the contract between B and the Defendant’s disposal of the sole property constitutes a fraudulent act which causes the reduction of creditors’ joint security against B including the Plaintiff, and it seems to have been aware of such circumstances. C. Bad faith of the Defendant is presumed to have been malicious, and the Defendant, while being aware that B had owned several real estate, was under mortgage on the instant automobile in order to secure the claim against C, so it is alleged to have been bona fide. However, it is alleged to have been in good faith, but the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number.) is stated.