1. A notary public between the defendant and the non-party C was concluded with the 2014 notarial deed No. 1059.

1 Determination as to the occurrence of obligee's right of revocation

A. (1) According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff leased 4 million won to C on June 10, 2013, with interest rate of 30% per annum and due date of payment on August 4, 2015, and with respect to the above claim, a notary public on August 4, 2014 can recognize the fact that a notary public prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan loan contract as a law firm No. 904 on August 4, 2014, the preserved claim is recognized. (2) Comprehensively taking into account the debtor’s fraudulent act and evidence No. 1 through No. 7, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, C shall be deemed to have been carried out between the Defendant and the Defendant on July 4, 2014, with corporeal movables owned by C as collateral, and with the Defendant on July 3, 2016, with the effect of a provisional disposition No. 30 million won as collateral, the obligor shall be deemed to have lost the security right to request a auction (hereinafter in this case).

According to the above facts, the legal act of this case constitutes a fraudulent act because C, which has already been in excess of its obligation, did the juristic act of this case (the conclusion of a loan contract for consumption of money by means of security by means of a security contract for movable property owned by C, and thus the Defendant would be given preferential repayment through execution of movable property owned by C) with the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act, and his intent is recognized, and as long as C's intent to commit an intentional act is recognized, the Defendant's malicious act is presumed to have been committed by the Defendant, the beneficiary, as long as C's intent to commit an intentional act is recognized. As such, the Defendant asserted that the payment of July 2014 was KRW 21,878,770, and August was KRW 14,867,563, but in full view of these circumstances, C was not insolvent at the time of the juristic act of this case, according to the above evidence, C was limited to the Plaintiff from July 2013 to December 2014.