1. It was concluded on July 26, 201 with regard to the share of C ownership among the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and C.

1. Establishment of a fraudulent act;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C borrowed KRW 40,00,000 from the Plaintiff on February 9, 2009, and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 23,300,000 among them. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking payment, and on June 6, 2012, C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 23,00,000 by June 30, 2012. If C fails to pay the above amount by the due date, the unpaid amount shall be paid by adding the delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the date following the due date to the date of full payment. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim shall be waived.”

(2) A. C shared the instant real estate indicated in the separate sheet with the Defendant. However, on July 26, 201, the Defendant and the instant real estate entered in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) entered into a sales contract with respect to the instant share, which is the only property owned by the Defendant and the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant without being fully paid the purchase price on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-7 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. 1) The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property owned by him, and changing it into money easily for consumption or transferring it to another person free of charge, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the debtor's intent of prejudice is presumed to exist, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferor did not have bad faith is the beneficiary (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). C sells the instant shares, which are the only property owned by him/her, and changes into money easily for consumption. Therefore, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is presumed that C's intent is presumed that the defendant had expressed intention to commit fraud to