1. As to the shares of 1,102/112,066 among each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and the non-party B, the defendant and the non-party on September 5, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. From January 2015 to February 2, 2015, the head of Echeon Tax Office demanded Nonparty B to provide guidance on omission in sales of value-added tax. B filed a revised return on September 2, 2016 but did not pay the additional tax amount. The head of Echeon Tax Office notified Nonparty B of the payment of value-added tax amount KRW 49,379,920 on October 26, 2016.

B. The defendant is the Chok in B.

C. B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on September 5, 2016 on each share of 1,102/112,066 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as prescribed by 51767 on September 7, 2016.

B is a debt excess situation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the establishment of fraudulent act

A. The establishment B of a fraudulent act reduced the joint security against the general creditors, including the Plaintiff, by donating the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of the obligation.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that B's gift contract is a fraudulent act in recognition of the fact that it may harm claims of general creditors, and the defendant's bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed.

B. The defendant's defense is a bona fide beneficiary who is not aware of the excess of B's obligation and received a donation. The defendant's defense is without merit since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.