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

A. A sales contract concluded on July 17, 2013 between the Defendant and B is concluded between the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 32,300,00 to B.

(36-month equal repayment of principal and interest, interest rate of 5.9%, overdue interest rate of 24%) B lost the benefit of time by delaying the repayment of principal and interest on the above loan.

As of December 2, 2013, the principal and interest of the above loan is KRW 29,310,123.

B. B entered into a sales contract (payment of KRW 20 million, and payment of July 22, 2013) with the Defendant (B) on July 17, 2013 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet (new registration on May 16, 2013), one of his/her sole property in excess of the debt, and completed the transfer of ownership as described in the order on the same day.

[In the case of wage claims, the part (at least 1/2) equivalent to certain amount (at least 1/2) as stipulated in Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act shall not be included in active property as a claim subject to prohibition of seizure, and even if it is based on evidence (Evidence 5) submitted by the defendant, it is only paid (at least 2.480,00 won per month) by August 2013] / [Grounds for Recognition] without any dispute, the fact that there is no dispute over Gap 1 through 3 evidence, Eul 1, 2 evidence, Gwangju market, and each fact-finding conducted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the purport of the whole pleadings, the result of the fact-finding conducted by the defendant.

2. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the judgment, and changing it into money which is easily consumed, is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the debtor's intent of prejudice is presumed to be presumed, and the burden of proof that the transferor did not malicious

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da41875 Decided April 24, 2001, etc.). It is presumed that the above sales contract concluded by B, a debtor, with the defendant, was fraudulent against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant also knew that the lack of common security of the plaintiff, etc. was caused by the conclusion of the above sales contract.

Even according to the defendant's argument, B-D around July 2013.