1. As to shares of 14/62 of the 62m2 in the 62m2 in Sincho-si:

A. A donation contract concluded on May 15, 2015 between the Defendant and C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 29, 2011, the judgment was rendered on September 2011, 201, that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 17,140,843 won and 11,908,109 won per annum from September 20, 2010 to the date of full payment” that the Plaintiff (hereinafter “CF”) filed against C with the Defendant for the transfer payment of KRW 17% per annum, which became final and conclusive at that time.

(B) The Plaintiff’s claim against C pursuant to the above judgment (hereinafter “instant preserved claim”).

C On May 15, 2015, the Defendant, who is one of his own children, entered into a contract to donate 14/62 shares of 62m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) out of 14/62m2 (hereinafter “instant gift contract”) one’s own property, the only property of the Defendant, and on June 5, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of shares in the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant share transfer registration”) with the Defendant under Article 9313 of the Chuncheon District Court’s receipt of initial support.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the result of fact inquiry into the Court Administration Office of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since C donated the instant real estate, which is one of its sole property, to the Defendant, the instant donation contract becomes a fraudulent act against C, which is the creditor of C, and is presumed to have the intention of deception C (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74843, Feb. 14, 2008). Accordingly, the instant donation contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act; accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of the transfer registration of equity to C.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the defendant asserts that the preserved claim of this case expired by prescription.

However, the third obligor has against the obligee in the creditor subrogation lawsuit.