1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 2014, E Co., Ltd. entered into a credit transaction agreement with D and 5 million won on December 1, 2016, setting the due date of payment as 29.9% per annum, and D lost the benefit of time due to the default of obligations under the said credit transaction agreement.

B. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired a claim under the said credit transaction agreement from the said savings bank, and the said savings bank notified D of the transfer of the claim on the same day.

On August 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Western District Court 2018Gaso541296, and on November 14, 2018, the court ruled that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 6,159,948 won and 3,443,465 won with interest of 29.9% per annum from April 28, 2018 to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 5, 2018, and the plaintiff's claim against D based on the above judgment is KRW 6,921,567 as of January 22, 2019.

C. D completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on October 30, 2013 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by the Defendant, who was attached on October 30, 2013, due to the receipt of the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch Office of Gwangju District Court (1652) on October 30, 2013, and the provisional registration of ownership transfer based on the pre-sale (hereinafter “instant pre-sale”). On January 8, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant registration”) on the ground of sale (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”).

The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to F on August 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, under the premise that the said contract constitutes a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff seeking cancellation of the contract and compensation for value.

3. Ownership of an ex officio decision obligor.