1. As to shares of 1/4 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. It was concluded on April 12, 2016 between the Defendant and B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 2006, a lot card company filed a lawsuit against B on the credit card use price (2006 Ghana 1461025) with the Seoul Central District Court, and the above court rendered a judgment on August 18, 2006 that “B shall pay 3,809,918 won to a lot card company and damages for delay,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the foregoing judgment claim from the Ga Card Co., Ltd., and completed the notification procedure of the transfer of the above claim to B on March 23, 2009. As of June 26, 2017, as of June 26, 2017, the sum of the principal and interest of the above judgment claim reaches KRW 8,521,621.

C. Meanwhile, B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on April 12, 2016 with respect to the shares of 1/4 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is its sole property (hereinafter “instant shares”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant on April 22, 2016, based on the above donation agreement, as the receipt of the indictment for all-round evidence of this court to the Defendant on the ground of the above donation agreement.

However, B was in excess of the obligation at the time of the above donation contract, and B and the defendant are in a form of penalty.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1-5 (including paper numbers), Eul No. 5, and the fact-finding conducted by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, B with respect to the instant share, which was in excess of the debt, concluded the above donation agreement with the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future with the Defendant. Unless there are special circumstances, the above donation agreement constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

Therefore, the above donation contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the above transfer of ownership with respect to the shares in this case.

3. As to the defendant's assertion, the judgment is made.