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

A. A sales contract concluded on September 14, 2015 between the Defendant and Nonparty B is concluded between the Defendant and Nonparty B.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Fact 1) On April 25, 2008, the Plaintiff is a non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party C”) company.

) A credit guarantee contract concluded between 1,500,000,000 won (the amount shall be reduced to KRW 1,200,000,000) and the guarantee period until April 24, 2009 (the extension by April 15, 2016 thereafter) and issued a credit guarantee certificate to the non-party company. The non-party company issued the credit guarantee certificate to the non-party company. On May 13, 2008, the Industrial Bank of Korea following the Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party bank").

2) Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not pay the principal and interest of a non-party bank to the non-party bank, 1,875,000,000 won was loaned from 1,875,000 won, B guaranteed the non-party company’s joint and several liability, such as reimbursement, when the Plaintiff pays the principal and interest of a loan to

3) On August 31, 2015, when the non-party company was out of money due to a business depression, the first bankruptcy on August 31, 2015 occurred. On October 1, 2015, the non-party company applied for corporate rehabilitation (former District Court 2015 Gohap30), and the Plaintiff subrogated to the non-party bank for KRW 1,213,363,328 on December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was in office as an auditor of the non-party company. However, on September 14, 2015, the non-party company sold real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which is the only property of the non-party company, to the Defendant on September 14, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant legal act”). The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant real estate under the former District Court’s receipt of No. 45231, Sept. 15, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (A) Determination 1) The relevant legal doctrine requires that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was, in principle, incurred prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there was a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim was established at the time of the fraudulent act, and the near future.