1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on July 27, 2017 by the same court with respect to the cases of compulsory auction for immovables D by the Daejeon District Court.

1. The Plaintiff, on September 6, 2003, entered into a sales contract with H, his father, the father, who represented by E and F, with the amount of KRW 1.8 billion on the day the down payment was paid KRW 180 million and the intermediate payment of KRW 360 million on December 30, 2003.

The above sales contract was null and void due to a dispute between the Plaintiff and H, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the purchase price paid against E and F (this Court 2008Gahap1938) and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on October 10, 2008, and the appeal was partially accepted on June 11, 2009, and E and F were partly accepted on June 11, 2009, and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, and the judgment in the second instance (hereinafter the above judgment referred to as “instant executive title”) became final and conclusive as it is.

On October 29, 2004, K registered the right to claim transfer of ownership as to the instant forest on the ground of the promise to trade on September 25, 2004.

E and F, based on the final judgment on the registration of ownership transfer to K on August 5, 201, after completing the registration of the principal registration based on the above provisional registration on behalf of K on the same day on the same day as the following day, the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant B was made on the same day as the trade of the E portion on the same day, and on the trade on July 1, 201, the registration of ownership transfer was completed to the defendant B's wife L on August 5, 201, and L again completed the registration of ownership transfer to the same person M on July 4, 2012.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that there is the instant executive title against E and F, and that E and F transferred the share of each of the instant forest land to Defendant B and L and M (hereinafter “Defendant B”) with respect to each of the instant forest land constitutes a fraudulent act, and that it constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the Suwon District Court in the lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act against Defendant B.