1. As to KRW 10,747,890 and KRW 10,500 among them, Defendant A’s year from December 6, 2013 to July 19, 2014.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

(a) Indication of claims: It is as shown in the attached Form;

(b) Grounds: Judgment by public notice (Articles 208 (3) 3 and 194 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The facts of recognition (1) Defendant B married Defendant A and Defendant B on May 14, 2006, but applied for divorce on March 21, 2012 with Seoul Northern District Court for divorce. On April 5, 2012, Defendant B confirmed his/her intention to divorce and completed the divorce report on April 15, 2012.

(2) On October 20, 2007, the Defendants purchased real estate in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in KRW 378,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 2007, respectively.

On March 22, 2012, Defendant A donated 1/2 shares of the instant apartment to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant gift”), and on the same day, Defendant A completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future on the same day.

(3) At the time of the instant gift agreement, Defendant A was insolvent as a debt excess.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 23 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. (1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant A donated 1/2 shares out of the instant apartment to Defendant B and completed the registration of ownership transfer in order to evade the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, etc. in excess of his/her obligation, and thus, the instant gift agreement constitutes a fraudulent act.

Within the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement as stated in the above Paragraph 1, the revocation of the gift contract of this case shall be sought, and the equivalent amount shall be claimed as compensation for value.

(2) Around March 2012, Defendant B transferred one-half shares of the instant apartment as a division of property in the process of the divorce between Defendant B and Defendant A.

The plaintiff's claim for indemnity was created only after the lapse of six months from the claim.

The gift contract of this case is not a fraudulent act as a division of property, since it does not deviate from a considerable degree.