1. Defendant A’s interest rate of KRW 34,469,294 and KRW 17,174,520 among the Plaintiff shall be from April 11, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Claim against the defendant A;

(a) the part corresponding to the above defendant among the grounds for the attachment of the claim to indicate it;

(b) Judgment by based service by publication (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. Basic facts 1) Defendant A is a single Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “One Capital”) on July 11, 2012.

(2) On May 26, 2015, 110 won of the loan amounting to KRW 48 months, interest rate of KRW 24.9% per annum, and delay damages rate of KRW 34.9% per annum. From September 5, 2013, 1) One Capital lost the benefit of time due to delay in the repayment of principal and interest, and then lost the benefit of time thereafter. (ii) One Capital transferred to the Plaintiff the credit amount of KRW 11,065,110, including the principal and interest of the loan amount of KRW 17,174,520, and interest (hereinafter “claim”). On June 30, 2015, one Capital transferred the credit amount of KRW 17,174,520, and notified the Defendant A of the assignment of credit.

As of April 10, 2017, the principal and interest of the instant claim is KRW 34,469,294.

3) The Defendants married on May 2, 198, but divorced on June 19, 2006. 4) under the condition that the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed with respect to the instant real estate owned by Defendant A from around 1994, on the ground of the “sale on May 22, 2013,” the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was completed in the Defendant B’s future on the grounds of the “sale on May 14, 2013.” On the same day, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was revoked, and the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage was completed with respect to the instant real estate owned by Defendant A from around 1994 as the Korea Telecommunication Bank, a maximum debt amount of claims, KRW 255,600,00, B00, and a new mortgage registration was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, fact-finding results on the subordinate market of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that Defendant A disposed of the instant real estate to Defendant B, the former wife, in excess of the debt. This constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the sales contract on the instant real estate between the Defendants should be revoked.

On the other hand, in the case of this case, the original contents are returned.