1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 24, 2013, the Plaintiff’s mother, who is the father of D and D, borrowed KRW 135,00,000 from the deceased F until March 30, 2013.

B. D’s failure to repay the above borrowed amount, the networkF filed a lawsuit against D seeking the payment of the borrowed amount, and on July 25, 2018, the judgment of the court below that “D shall pay the Plaintiff and G, a party to the lawsuit against the networkF, each of the KRW 67,500,000, and the delay damages (hereinafter “the instant claim”).

C. On October 2, 2018, D entered into a sales contract with the Defendants for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and the same month.

8. Each of the Defendants’ respective registrations of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant registration”) has been completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that D had the instant claim against D around July 2018, but D sold the instant real estate, the only real estate owned by D, to the Defendants on October 2, 2018, and was in excess of its liability, and the instant transfer registration was completed, and the Plaintiff committed a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the instant sales contract between D and the Defendants, while seeking the cancellation of the instant transfer registration.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. In a fraudulent act by relevant legal principles, it means that a debtor’s legal act causes a decrease in the debtor’s whole property, i.e., a decrease in the debtor’s property by an act of disposal of the debtor’s property, thereby making it impossible for the creditor to fully satisfy his/her claims by asserting that the debtor’s legal act is a fraudulent act and seeking revocation thereof, by causing a shortage of joint security of claims or a lack of joint security already under the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009).