1. It was concluded on October 20, 2013 between the Defendant and Nonparty B on the real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate.

1. Determination as to the occurrence of obligee's right of revocation

A. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of statements and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the preserved claim No. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff may recognize that Nonparty B has a loan claim amounting to KRW 332,00,000 (eight ordinary loans) as stated in the separate sheet, and that B has lost the benefit of time on August 19, 2013. According to the above acknowledged facts, the preserved claim is recognized. 2) Comprehensively taking into account the debtor’s fraudulent act and the intent of evidence No. 2 and 5 as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as its sole property in excess of the debt, B may recognize the fact that it entered into a sales contract as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant juristic act”).

According to the above facts, the legal act in this case constitutes a fraudulent act, its intention is recognized, and the defendant's bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed as long as it is recognized as the intention of harm B, since the joint security against the general creditor has decreased by doing the legal act in this case.

In regard to this, the Defendant, at the time of the instant legal act, claimed that the instant legal act did not impair the general creditor, on the ground that: (a) the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on July 19, 2013, consisting of the non-party 60,000 won for the establishment of a mortgage; (b) the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the ground of a contract dated August 16, 2013; (c) the mortgagee C, the maximum debt amount of KRW 240,000,000 for the establishment of a mortgage on August 19, 2013; and (d) the value of the instant real estate was eight million won for the establishment of a mortgage on the ground of the instant legal act; and (c) at the time of the instant legal act, the instant legal act did not impair the general creditor. At the time of the instant legal act, the Defendant claimed that the instant real estate did not constitute a fraudulent act.