1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and C, a approximately 93,284.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2008 to January 10, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 330 million to the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On January 10, 2010, the Deceased agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 330 million up to May 15, 2012 and pay interest of KRW 1% per month.

B. On December 7, 2012, the deceased’s wife D, without authority, concluded a sales contract on behalf of the deceased with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the deceased (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 10, 2012.

C. The Deceased died on March 2013, and his heir had wife D, son E, and F.

On September 2013, the deceased’s inheritors ratified the instant sales contract.

At the time of the instant sales contract, the Deceased was in excess of his obligation.

E. The establishment registration of a neighboring real estate established prior to the instant sales contract was cancelled after the instant sales contract was concluded.

F. The market price of each real estate of this case around September 3, 2014, which is close to the date of closing the argument of this case, is in accordance with the amount of no dispute between the parties concerned at KRW 1,60,003,580.

In addition, the sum of the secured debt amount of the right of collateral security, the amount of the obligation to return the security deposit, and the amount of the obligation to return the security deposit, which was established before and after the sales contract was terminated after the sales contract was concluded, is 1,506,718,784 won

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, there is a preserved claim against the deceased, and the sales contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is presumed that the defendant will commit an intentional act, so the sales contract of this case between the deceased and the defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and since the registration of creation of a mortgage on each real estate of this case was revoked after the sales contract of this case.