1. The sales contract concluded on June 27, 2015 between the Defendant and B is revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 24, 2014, Hyundai Social Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant loans”) granted loans of KRW 28,000,000 to B by setting the lending period of KRW 48 months, interest rate of loans of KRW 12.9%, and damages for delay rate of KRW 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant loans”).

B. On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff (Withdrawal) received the instant loan claims from Hyundai Mys Co., Ltd., and the said corporation notified the said transfer to B on September 4, 2015.

C. Claims for loans of this case as of December 1, 2015

4.7. Total sum of KRW 24,649,174, including principal and late payment charges.

B On June 27, 2015, on a sales contract to sell real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) recorded in the attached list (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer as prescribed in Section 2 of the Disposition.

E. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, B’s property was only the instant real estate, and B was in excess of the liability.

F. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired the claim for the instant loan from the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) and applied for intervention in the instant lawsuit on June 8, 2016.

On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) withdrawn from the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The alteration of a fraudulent act and the sale of real estate, which is the sole property of an obligor, is a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, to the extent that it is easy for the obligor to consume them with money, and the obligor’s intent of deception, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, refers to recognizing the shortage of joint collateral for claims, and thus does not require any intent or intent to harm the obligee. In the event that the obligor sells real estate, which is the sole property, and changes the obligor into money easily for consumption, the obligor’s intent of deception is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009).