1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement based on a judgment that became final and conclusive as of September 25, 2010 to B, and the amount reaches KRW 179,694,038 as of December 16, 2016.

B The above debt against the plaintiff is the guaranteed debt, and the principal debtor is C who is the spouse.

B. B continued to renew the lease contract from January 6, 2009, and had resided in the real estate indicated in the attached Table, which is a public construction apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The lease deposit of the apartment of this case around September 2009 is KRW 55 million.

C. B entered into a conversion contract for sale in lots with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, the owner of the instant apartment on April 30, 2015, and paid KRW 111,53,000 after deducting KRW 59,87,000 from the lease deposit, which was refunded at the conversion price of KRW 171,420,00.

5. 18. The registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the above apartment.

The defendant on May 18, 2015, in relation to the apartment of this case, as described in B.

4. 30. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer based on trade concluded on 30. Execution, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to another mining-based agricultural cooperative with the maximum debt amount set at KRW 184,800,000.

E. B was in excess of the debt at the time of selling the instant apartment to the Defendant, who was the Plaintiff, and there was no particular property except the above apartment.

2. Determination

A. The key issue is as seen earlier, B’s disposal of the apartment of this case, which is the only property owned by B, was carried out by the Defendant, who is the only property owned by B. Therefore, such act by B constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, barring any special circumstances, and the Defendant’s bad faith, who purchased the above apartment, is presumed to have been presumed to have been presumed to have been committed. 2) As to this, the Defendant paid a normal price to B, and used B’s proceeds as repayment of the obligation, the said disposal act did not constitute a fraudulent act, but did not intend to cause harm to B.