1. The sales contract concluded on March 20, 2013 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B is KRW 797,858.

1. Basic facts

A. On or before March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the credit card amount to the franchise store or lent money in the form of a credit card loan loan pursuant to the credit card membership agreement concluded with B, and B, as of July 12, 2013, lost the benefit of time due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,265,008 in total of the credit card payment, its delayed payment damages, the card loan principal, and its delayed payment damages.

B. On July 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff was heading in Changwon District Court Heading 2013 tea 927.

On July 18, 2013, B filed an application for payment order seeking payment of credit card bills, etc. stated in the Paragraph, and the above court issued an order to the Plaintiff to pay 21,265,008 won and 20,213,335 won with interest rate of 29.9% per annum from July 13, 2013 to the date of full payment, and the above payment order was finalized around that time.

C. B, on March 20, 2013, concluded a sales contract with the Defendant on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) that is the only property between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the Defendant on the same day.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition of fraudulent act Paragraph 1, B at the time of the instant sales contract, it appears that at the time of the instant sales contract, B had assumed the Plaintiff’s credit card use price and credit card loan obligation, and the Plaintiff’s credit card use price and credit card loan claim can be the preserved claim of this case.

In addition, the act of selling the instant real estate, which is the only property of the Defendant, in excess of the debt, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff and other creditors, unless there are special circumstances.