1. The Defendant received the registration office of the Incheon District Court on June 24, 2016 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 22, 2017, the bankruptcy debtor B (hereinafter “B”) was declared bankrupt on June 22, 2017 by the Incheon District Court No. 2017Hadan817, and the Plaintiff litigant was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee B on the same day.

B. On June 1, 2016, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for KRW 420 million with respect to the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future as the Incheon District Court’s registration No. 184789, Jun. 24, 2016.

C. B On June 20, 2016, on June 20, 2016, on the vehicles owned by the Defendant for the first time in 2011 (E; hereinafter “instant vehicles”) the establishment of mortgage, which caused the secured debt of 30 million won, is completed.

B According to the list of creditors submitted by the above bankruptcy proceedings on February 28, 2017, B's obligations are KRW 406,741,272.

E. B leased the instant apartment to F around January 2016 at KRW 350 million as the lease deposit, and around that time, received KRW 350 million as the said deposit.

B The obligation to return the above lease deposit against F is not specified in the above list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, 7, and 8, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The phrase “an act of having knowledge that the debtor would prejudice any bankruptcy creditor”, which is an act subject to avoidance pursuant to Article 391 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act regarding the cause of the claim, includes a fraudulent act that reduces the bankruptcy estate by deviating from the debtor’s general property, which is a joint security of the total creditor, from the bankruptcy estate (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56637, 56644, Oct. 13, 201). The author argues that the above phrase “an act of damaging the bankruptcy creditor” is sufficient if the debtor is aware that at the time of the act subject to avoidance, the debtor’s joint security property that is a joint security for the bankruptcy creditor is reduced due to such act.

The above facts of recognition.