1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. A reservation to return substitutes entered into on July 11, 2014 between C and the Defendant is made.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in Gap evidence 1 to 9 (including paper numbers) by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings:

Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Plaintiff lent 60 million won interest rate of 30% per annum to C around 2003 and on December 10, 2006. However, C only paid interest and delay damages until June 10, 2007, but did not pay the remainder of interest and principal amount. (2) The Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order (Seoul East District Court Decision 2014Da5530, Seoul East District Court Decision 2014Da4796) against C on July 10, 2014, but the Plaintiff paid 30% interest and delay damages to the Plaintiff on April 9, 2015.

B. On July 11, 2014, C entered into a promise to return substitutes (hereinafter “instant substitutes”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”). On July 14, 2014, C’s disposal act entered into a promise to return substitutes with respect to each real estate of this case with the Defendant, and completed the provisional registration of transfer of ownership security (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”).

C. C’s financial status was in excess of the obligation that exceeds the positive property at the time of the conclusion date of the promise to return the substitute of this case ( July 11, 2014).

2. The establishment of a fraudulent act;

A. The fact that the above loan claim against the Plaintiff C in existence of the preserved claim was incurred prior to the promise to return the substitute of this case is as seen earlier, and thus, the above loan claim becomes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

(b)the debtor has already been absent from the establishment of the fraudulent act.