1. The sales contract concluded on July 4, 2017 between the Defendant and B on each real estate listed in the separate sheet is 12,416.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff received a payment order for KRW 24.5% per annum with respect to KRW 1,915,194, and KRW 3,509,239, and with respect to KRW 24.5% per annum with respect to KRW 1,191,67, and KRW 5,850,000 per annum with respect to KRW 27.6% per annum with respect to KRW 24.5%, and KRW 5,850,000 with respect to KRW 27.6% per annum. The Plaintiff received a payment order for KRW 20,000,000 from January 17, 2017 to the date of complete payment. The above payment order was served on B and around that time, the said payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

B. On July 4, 2017, B sold each real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) indicated in the separate sheet, which is the only property of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 20943 on July 12, 2017, Daejeon District Court’s official housing branch branch office, Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Office, Seoul District Court.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number in the case where there are virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the result of an order to submit tax information on the public market, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the issue

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the secured claim, the Plaintiff has a claim against B pursuant to the instant payment order, and the above claim is an obligee’s right of revocation arising prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and becomes a preserved claim.

B. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of his own, and replacing it with money which is easily consumed by him, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Thus, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed, and the burden of proving that the purchaser did not have bad faith is the beneficiary.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420 delivered on April 14, 1998, etc.). Accordingly, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors of B, and the Defendant’s bad faith, which is the debtor B, is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors of B.