1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant and B, and won the case as follows.

(In Busan District Court Decision 2007Gaso185606, the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 20, 2008). Meanwhile, as of June 17, 2017, the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant and B were KRW 17,229,030.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 16,929,955 won and 4,774,478 won among them, with 25% interest per annum from December 30, 1996 to December 21, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B On April 11, 2017, the Defendant sold (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) 50/115 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) among the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 2, 2017, the Changwon District Court issued the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) with the receipt No. 11824 on June 2, 2017, such as the common support of the Changwon District Court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the act of selling the instant shares, the sole property of B, constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer of this case as its restitution.

Unless there exist special circumstances, it is a fraudulent act to change a debtor’s sale of real estate, which is the sole property, into money that can be consumed by the sale of real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da23207, Oct. 29, 196). In revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary is liable to prove that the beneficiary is acting in good faith

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da18514 delivered on April 28, 2005, etc.). In addition to the description of evidence No. 3 and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the inquiry of the fact-finding inquiry into the viewing of the audience of this court, the share of this case can be acknowledged as the sole property of No. 2.

B has disposed of the shares of this case, which are its sole property.