1. As to vehicles listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B, the reason is limited to the transfer of the transaction between the parties on December 11, 2015.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the determination of fraudulent act, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 11, and the fact-finding with the head of Seocho-gu Office of this Court, Eul concluded a credit card use contract with Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. and did not pay credit card fees from November 15, 2015, and Eul concluded a credit card use contract with Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. and transferred the instant vehicle to the defendant on December 11, 2015. The plaintiff acquired the claim against Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. from Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. on January 11, 2016, Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. and notified the plaintiff of the fact that he succeeded to the assignment of the claim against the plaintiff on November 14, 2015.

B The conclusion of a transfer contract on the instant vehicle, which is the only property between the Defendant and the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff’s successor, the creditor of B.

As such, on December 11, 2015, the party transaction transfer contract should be cancelled.

B. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the revocation of fraudulent act and the scope of compensation for value, Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the overall purport of the arguments is as follows: (a) the market price of the instant vehicle under the vehicle standard value table of the Korea Insurance Development Institute as of July 2016 was 6,680,000 won; (b) the 2007 formula was 5,740,000 won; and (c) the Defendant’s insurance price of the instant vehicle purchased on December 11, 2015 was 4,00,000 won; and (d) further, the Plaintiff calculated the value of the instant vehicle at the time of filing the instant lawsuit as of December 84,000.