1. As to the construction machinery listed in the separate sheet:

A. C and the Defendant cancel the transfer agreement concluded on September 21, 2016, and B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 6, 2016, C drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay 90 million won in installments, 15% per annum, 4 million won per annum from March 30, 2016 to December 30, 2017 during the 22-month period from March 30, 2016 to December 30, 2017.”

B. As to the construction machinery listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant construction machinery”), the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration with E on January 6, 2016, and C completed the ownership transfer registration with the receipt number D on September 21, 2016.

(C) The act of causing the Defendant to file a transfer registration of ownership on the instant construction machinery (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction machinery transfer agreement”).

At the time of the instant transfer agreement, C did not have any property other than the instant construction machinery.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the fact inquiry results against the Ulsan-gun Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, C bears the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow funds on the Notarial Deed, but C transferred the ownership of the construction machinery of this case to the Defendant without any specific property other than the construction machinery of this case, and caused the lack of common creditors’ joint security including the Plaintiff. As such, the instant transfer agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to constitute a beneficiary.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The construction machinery of this case was originally purchased by C, and only its title was left as the plaintiff. As C demanded the plaintiff to transfer the construction machinery of this case to the plaintiff while resolving de facto marital relations with the plaintiff, the plaintiff must appear to be a clerical error in the amount of KRW 80 million (90 million) or as the defendant's assertion.

(b) require payment.