1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is a creditor of C, and the sales contract concluded on October 6, 2016 between C and the Defendant with respect to each of the instant real estate is fraudulent act, and thus, it is revoked, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the registration of transfer of claim as stated in the purport that was completed with respect to each of the instant

B. We examine whether the judgment C’s disposal of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act.

1) In the case of a real estate on which a mortgage is established, a fraudulent act may be established by offering only the balance remaining after deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate to the joint collateral of general creditors. At the time when C sells each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, each of the instant real estate was established with each of the instant maximum debt amount of KRW 105 million,00,000,000, and E’s maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000,000. The facts that each of the instant secured debt amount of each of the instant real estate exceeded the market price of each of the instant real estate can be acknowledged by the statement in Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2. Therefore, since the secured debt amount of each of the instant real estate exceeds the value of each of the instant real estate, the disposal of the instant real estate by C to the Defendant cannot be a fraudulent act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant secured debt was a false mortgage claim, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the transfer of KRW 17,17,20,20,0.21,0.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is added.