1. A sales contract concluded on July 14, 2015 between the Defendant and A Co., Ltd. with respect to B 15,11.1 square meters in Naju-si between the Defendant and A Co., Ltd.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. The ground for partial dismissal is that the Plaintiff seeks revocation between the Defendant and A corporation within the limit of KRW 1,930,054,212 with respect to the sales contract concluded on July 14, 2015 with respect to B Dae-si 15,111 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Where a fraudulent act is revoked due to cancellation of right to collateral security, etc. in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the revocation and compensation for value shall be limited to the lesser of the plaintiff's preserved claim amount, joint collateral value of real estate subject to the fraudulent act, and profits acquired by the beneficiary, unless there are special circumstances.

According to Gap evidence No. 8, the real estate of this case was sold at KRW 6,453,00,000 for the sale price in the voluntary auction procedure, and among the actual dividends of KRW 6,431,536,949 except for the execution cost, Gwangju Bank received dividends of KRW 4,80,000,000 for the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security as the first creditor by Gwangju Bank as the first creditor, and the defendant received dividends of KRW 1,631,536,949 for surplus as the owner of the real estate of this case.

Therefore, the profit acquired by the defendant as a beneficiary of fraudulent act shall be KRW 1,631,536,949, which is the amount equivalent to the surplus distributed to the defendant in the above voluntary auction procedure. Since the amount of the plaintiff's preserved claim is less than KRW 1,930,054,212, the above KRW 1,631,536,949 shall be the limit of revocation of the fraudulent act and compensation for the equivalent value.

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 1,631,536,949 among the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the fraudulent act in this case is without merit.