1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. A sales contract concluded on August 6, 2012 between the Defendants and Nonparty D is concluded.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application against Nonparty D for a payment order of the acquisition amount with Seoul Western District Court 201 tea1.1263, and the Defendant (D) paid damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from January 21, 2011 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 31,281,981 and KRW 13,487,368 among them, to the Plaintiff.

On January 31, 2011, D was served on D, and D did not raise any objection, and it became final and conclusive on February 15, 2011.

B. The Defendants are both D and South Korea, and D are the only real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only real estate of the Plaintiff on August 6, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”).

As to the 15 percent share of 39 percent, "the sales contract of this case" is "the sales contract of this case with the defendants."

B. The Defendants concluded the registration of ownership transfer in the Daegu District Court No. 50923, Aug. 9, 2012, as to each of the instant real property, the registration of ownership transfer in the Daegu District Court No. 50923, Aug. 9, 2012.

3) The grounds for the judgment of the court below were as follows: [The facts of no dispute over the grounds for the judgment of the court below, the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4

2. The debtor's sale of real estate, which is the only property, and alteration of money which is easily consumed by selling real estate is a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances. The debtor's intent to commit a fraudulent act refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of joint collateral of claims, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act. It does not require any intent or intent to impair the creditor, and if the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property, and alters the sale of real estate into money which is easily consumed by the debtor, the debtor's intention is presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser or the transferor has no bad faith, exists

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009). They return to the instant case.