1. As to the portion of the D apartment No. 212-1/2, No. 1204-1, 204, Dong-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City with the defendant, the defendant and C

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s credit claim against C holds a loan claim of KRW 49,965,00,000, totaling KRW 19,965,000, out of loans of KRW 59,965,00 on November 14, 2014, and KRW 30,000,000 on May 4, 2015.

B. C’s disposal dispositive act 1) C is one-half equity (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the 1/2 equity (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the D Apartment Nos. 212, 12, and 1204, Dong-dong, Busan-gu, U.S., U.S., the 1/2 equity (hereinafter “instant real property”) where the Defendant and E shared one-half equity shares.

) The sales contract for the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) On March 24, 2016, the Defendant entered into the instant real estate ownership transfer registration (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate transfer registration”) with respect to the instant real estate.

(2) At the time of the instant sales contract, the instant real estate was the only property of C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Unless there are special circumstances, changing the sale of real estate, which is the sole property of the debtor, into money that can be consumed, becomes a fraudulent act, and the debtor's intent of deception, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, is to recognize that there is a shortage of joint security for claims, and thus, it does not require any intent or intent to impair creditors, and if the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property, and alters into money that can be consumed easily, it is presumed that the debtor's intent of deception is presumed (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above facts acknowledged earlier, C's act of selling the real estate of this case to the defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor,

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not know of the excess of the obligation of C, and only paid in cash to C.