1. The annexed list between the Ab&S Mete et al. and Ebrida et al. shall be set out.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff had a claim for the refund of KRW 38 million and damages for delay incurred from lending the loan to the Lbnb, Inc., and was awarded a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit seeking the payment of the loan.

(T) Daegu District Court Decision 2014Da12757 case, appeal and dismissal of appeal).

On April 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant movable property”) listed in the attached list (hereinafter “D”) with the title of execution in the Daegu-gu Dong-gu D store located in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (Franchis retail store consisting of the franchise headquarters Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “D store”), which is located in the Daegu-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul-gu, which operated the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. as the title of execution, and withdrawn the application for auction after receiving a promise to repay debts from the date of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

C. However, the decision-making date, however, did not pay the loan to the Plaintiff even thereafter, terminated the business of the D branch and transferred the instant movable property to the KCAB, a master company, to the KCAB.

On May 20, 2016, the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with the Institute of Bankruptcy and the D Points, and accordingly, paid 98,09,380 won to the Institute of Bankruptcy and Bankruptcy and acquired the instant movable property by transfer.

E. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was unaware of this fact, filed a new application for auction of the instant movable property, but it was impossible to execute a seizure execution on the grounds that the instant movable property was not an asset of the T&S test.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. It seems that the transfer of the instant movable property to the KCAB to the KCAB, a master franchisee, was based on a sales contract concluded upon the termination of the franchise agreement. It is a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, barring special circumstances.