1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned 16.26% per annum to B on October 23, 2012, and 90 million won per due date on October 23, 2017. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of the principal and interest of loan against B by losing the benefit due date (Seoul Central District Court 2014GaGa149583), and on November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff ordered the payment of KRW 74,62,969 and KRW 70,833 won per annum from July 10, 2014 to the date of full payment, and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On March 7, 2014, B sold to the Defendant the share of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion B caused or deepens the debt excess conditions by concluding the instant sales contract, so the said sales contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant bears the duty to restore.

3. First of all, we examine whether B had already been in excess of its obligation at the time of the instant sales contract, or whether B had been in excess of its obligation by the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

As shown in the attached Table B, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was in excess of KRW 180 million, since B was holding active property of KRW 6,041,546,720 as at the time of the instant sales contract and the small property of KRW 6,230,374,472.

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 22, among the small property in the attached Table No. 22, the maximum debt amount of KRW 250,000,000 among the small property in the attached Table No. 3, and the debtor C had already been cancelled due to termination on March 14, 2014, which was seven days after the date of the contract of this case, it is difficult to view that the above KRW 250,000 as of the date of the contract of this case should be deducted from the plaintiff's active property value.