On November 21, 2019, the 6/40 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and C are concluded.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since December 1993, D Bank borrowed foreign currency funds to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and C jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of E.

B. On March 29, 2001, the D Bank transferred the claim against C to the Korea Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter “instant claim”), and notified C of this at that time.

On July 21, 2006, the Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit against C on the basis of the instant claim, and received a favorable judgment (Tgu District Court 2006Da37226), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 5, 2006.

C. On August 28, 2012, the Korea Asset Management Corporation transferred the instant bonds to the Plaintiff and notified C of the transfer.

On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C in respect of the claim for the amount of the transfer money, and on February 15, 2017, “C shall be jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, Co., Ltd., and 66,459,591 won and the damages for delay of KRW 59,50,000 among them, shall not exceed KRW 431,60,600,000 and KRW 30,700,000 among them, respectively, to the extent of KRW 41,60,607,262 and KRW 30,70,000 among them (Seoul Central District Court 2016Da528712). The above judgment was finalized on March 3, 2017.

C A. On November 21, 2019, the Defendant, as the ASEAN, entered into a contract of donation with respect to one’s own 6/40 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) and completed the entire transfer of shares (hereinafter “each of the instant registrations”) with the Daegu District Court No. 185180 on December 2, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the claim in this case becomes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation seeking the revocation of the gift contract in this case, and there is no dispute between the parties that C had in an insolvent state exceeding positive property at the time of the donation contract in this case.

Furthermore, the debtor.