1. The scope of KRW 8,473,549, which was concluded on September 22, 2014 with regard to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B.

1. Facts recognized;

A. B used a credit card after having subscribed as the Plaintiff’s credit card holder on December 22, 2007, and delayed payment of the card price from November 15, 2014. As of September 22, 2014, the amount of debt to the Plaintiff on September 22, 2014 is the total amount of KRW 6,361,00, as indicated in the attached Form sales statement.

B. Meanwhile, on September 22, 2014, B concluded a sales contract with the Defendant on September 22, 2014 with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with which it was its sole property (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant sales under the Defendant’s name on September 26, 2014.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate was completed on two occasions, namely, the National Bank of Korea and the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000. The Defendant repaid the total debt amount of KRW 50,000 on May 19, 2015, which was after the instant sales contract, and revoked each of the said mortgages.

The current market price of the instant real estate is KRW 85 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Gap evidence Nos. 8-8, 9, and 10, Gap evidence Nos. 8-9, and Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office's order and reply to submit tax information, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the establishment of a fraudulent act, and replacing it with money which is easily consumed, constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, barring any special circumstances.

In this case, B sold the real estate of this case, which is the only property of the Defendant, and thus, the sales contract of this case was a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor of B, barring special circumstances, and B was aware that it would thereby prejudice the creditor, and further, the defendant's bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been the beneficiary

B. As to the Defendant’s bona fide assertion.