1. The sales contract concluded on April 26, 2016 between the defendant and D with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiffs’ claim 1) The Plaintiffs resided with E and D’s children after they were divorced on or around December 199, and E and D lived with E. 2) on April 18, 2014, and the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for the payment of support fees against D as 2016 D’s high-level district court support 2009. On May 10, 2016, the said lawsuit became final and conclusive that “D shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million with support fees in the past, and KRW 60 million with support fees in the future, and shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 130,000 from April 1, 2016 to June 26, 2016.”

B. D’s disposal act 1) D’s disposal act on April 26, 2016, immediately after being served with the Defendant with the notice of recommending reconciliation, the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

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

(2) On the same day, the Defendant entered into the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant ownership 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 D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and 6 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Unless there are special circumstances, it is a fraudulent act to sell real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and change it into money easily for consumption. The debtor’s intent of deception, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of joint security for claims. Therefore, 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 easily for consumption, it is presumed that the debtor’s intent of deception is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, D’s intent is presumed to be a defendant.