1. The purchase and sale reservation agreement entered into on August 18, 2015 between the Defendant and Nonparty B regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

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

A. As of May 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was holding the claim for oil price of KRW 41,100,000 against Nonparty B, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of KRW 8 million against DGB Capital in April 27, 2015, and subrogated to the said company for the payment of KRW 7,199,047 on October 7, 2015 (the amount of the claim for indemnity as of the day was KRW 54,082,584), can be acknowledged in full view of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 1 through 5, and according to the above facts of recognition, the preserved claim is recognized.

B. On August 18, 2015, the debtor's fraudulent act and intent B made a pre-sale contract entered into with the defendant on August 18, 2015 under insolvent (hereinafter "the instant legal act"), and completed provisional registration entered in the order. The instant legal act constitutes a fraudulent act as it constitutes a case where joint security for general creditors has been reduced by entering into a pre-sale contract with B in excess of debt, and its intention is recognized, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary, as long as the intention of harm B is recognized.

C. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s bona fide initiative, the Defendant requested B to lend KRW 251,10,000 on June 1, 2015, and loaned KRW 251,100,000 on June 12, 2015, and thereafter, on August 18, 2015, the Defendant made the provisional registration of this case for the purpose of securing KRW 77,50,000 out of the above loans. However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was one of the general creditors prior to the instant legal act, and as long as the joint security for the general creditors has decreased due to the instant legal act, it was insufficient to presume the bad faith, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

2. The instant case is based on the determination of restitution.