1. On August 31, 2015, the Defendant and Nonparty B concluded on August 31, 2015 with respect to 5/30 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty B on the claim for the takeover amount, and received the judgment of the Gwangju District Court 2007Gaso34124, that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from November 10, 2007 to the date of complete payment, with respect to KRW 41,719,49, and KRW 19,782,371 among them,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. The mother of the Defendant and B died on March 6, 2014, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 12, 2015 with respect to each legal share of inheritance among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the inheritors on June 12, 2015 upon a subrogation application for the enforcement of a compulsory auction by a set-off loan limited liability company that became a creditor of B.

C. On August 31, 2015, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with B to purchase 5/30 of the instant real estate worth 25 million won (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 4, 2016.

At the time of the instant sales contract, B had no property other than the share of the instant real estate, and was insolvent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, North Mineju Tax Office, Gwangju Metropolitan City North-gu, and Seok-gun, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of each order to submit taxation information,

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since the existence of the preserved claim was established as the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer money at the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer money constitutes the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. The debtor’s act of selling real estate, which is the only property of himself/herself, and changing it into money which is easily consumed, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Thus, the debtor’s intent of deception is presumed to be presumed to be a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009). In fact, the debtor’s intent of deception is in excess of his/her obligation.