1. A donation contract concluded on December 29, 2014 between the Defendant and C with respect to one-half share of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. D filed a lawsuit against C, etc. for damages arising from tort as Seoul East Eastern District Court 2013Kahap102051, and the above court rendered a judgment on April 30, 2014 that “C, etc. shall pay D 171,036,500 won and delay damages therefor,” and the appellate court’s decision that “C shall pay D 100,000,000 won by June 30, 2015,” was concluded in the appellate case where the Seoul High Court 2014Na2016171 as both appeals.

B. However, on December 29, 2014, in the process of the above appellate trial, C entered into a contract to donate one-half shares of one-half of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant donation contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant as Seoul Eastern District Court No. 89349, Dec. 30, 2014 with respect to the said shares.

(hereinafter “instant transfer registration”). C.

C At the time of entering into the gift contract of this case, while at the time of entering into the gift contract of this case, the gift contract of this case and the transfer registration of ownership of this case were in a state where there was no assets having real value of active properties other than the shares of the above real estate.

On the other hand, D on December 2018, 201.

The claim following the adjustment of port entry was transferred to the Plaintiff, and around that time, C notified C of the assignment of claim.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, barring any special circumstance, such an act becomes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance. In cases where the debtor, by means of the reduction of positive property or the increase of negative property, thereby damaging the creditor’s creditor, it would also constitute a fraudulent act. Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da41575 Decided October 27, 2014; 2015Da254675 Decided October 26, 2017.