1. A contract is concluded on February 4, 2015 with the Defendant and CFE on the 298 square meters of land for the instant stock farm in the Jeon Chang-gun, Jeonbuk-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C. A.C. (representative E) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on March 15, 1995 with respect to D farm site 298 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. C A.M.D. defaulted on and around 2011.

C. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against CF to pay the construction cost with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Gau30, which was rendered by the Seoul District Court, and rendered a decision of performance recommendation on January 29, 2015 to the effect that “CF would pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,00,000 and damages for delay thereof,” and the said decision became final and conclusive on February 14, 2015 after being served on CF to CF on January 30, 2015.

C Ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) was completed on February 4, 2015, when it is insolvent, on February 4, 2015, on the instant real estate, which is the only property to the Defendant, due to the donation from February 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant donation”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The key issue of this case is to seek the revocation and restitution of the gift of this case, which is a fraudulent act, by making the claim pursuant to the above decision of performance recommendation against C Farming Cooperatives as the preserved right.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that there was no intention of deception as long as the real estate in this case was transferred for payment in lieu of loans lent to E.

Where the obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, if the obligor provided the obligor’s property as payment in kind or as a collateral to a certain obligee, barring any special circumstance, it would directly prejudice the interests of other obligees, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218, Jul. 12, 2007). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is accepted.