1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B decided on July 15, 201 as interest rate of 28.9% per annum, and agreed to receive a loan of KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff to repay the total amount of KRW 30,693,793 in installments over 36 months.

B. On April 24, 2013, the repayment period of the above loan extended to 36 months, but the interest arising from installment payments was lost due to the delay in the payment of the principal and interest from November 27, 2013.

C. On October 16, 2013, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Defendant, which was the son of B, in receipt of the vehicle registration office in Daegu-si on October 16, 2013 with respect to the instant automobile, which was originally registered as the owner.

At the time of the above transfer registration, B owned the instant automobile purchased at KRW 1,8810,00 and the instant automobile owned at KRW 26,80,000,00 of the officially announced land price in 2013, and the housing owned at KRW 67.5 square meters and its ground. It was assumed that a national bank bears the liability of KRW 68,005,213,000,000,000, including loans of KRW 18,241,670,000, national health insurance premium delinquent, KRW 5,113,30, and the above loans of KRW 14,650,213, and KRW 30,00,00 for E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he transferred the instant vehicle to the Defendant in excess of his obligation. The former act constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the obligee, and thus, the sales contract concluded on October 16, 2013 between the Defendant and B should be revoked. The Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the transfer registration made in the name of the Defendant for restitution to the original state.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant motor vehicle was merely a title trust with the Defendant’s purchase of the name referred to in B, which was employed as a motor vehicle company, in order to obtain a discount on the application of the regulations on the sale of executives and employees as the actual owner, and thus,

3. Determination real estate.