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

A. The sales contract concluded on January 14, 2014 between the Defendant and B is revoked, and B.

1. The Plaintiff’s claim determination is premised on the existence of a claim for a loan against B, and the sales contract concluded between the Defendant and B (hereinafter “instant automobile”) with respect to an automobile indicated in the attached Form B (hereinafter “instant automobile”) is an act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a general creditor, and thus, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the cancellation, etc. of the instant sales contract.

However, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap or Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff transferred the above loan claims against Eul on May 20, 2016 during the lawsuit of this case to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff, notified the plaintiff of the transfer to B on May 23, 2016, and submitted a written withdrawal from the lawsuit to this court on June 30, 2016, but the plaintiff did not obtain the defendant's consent.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against B does not exist, and the plaintiff's claim against B is rejected on a different premise without further review.

2. Determination as to the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. The claim indication B entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant in excess of its obligation and completed the transfer registration of ownership to the Defendant on the instant automobile. The instant sales contract must be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who is a general creditor in B, and the Defendant is obligated to complete the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership to B due to its restitution.

(b) Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts.