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

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

On August 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation and restitution of the said sales contract, asserting that the said sales contract was a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor, on the premise that the sales contract for an automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”) was concluded between Nonparty A and the Defendant, a debtor.

However, when considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Gap transferred the instant vehicle to Samsung Trenk Co., Ltd. on August 9, 2012, and completed the ownership transfer registration in the future of Samsung Trenk Co., Ltd. on the same day, Samsung Trenk Co., Ltd. on August 17, 2012, only can be aware that the instant vehicle was transferred to the defendant on the same day and completed the ownership transfer registration in the future of the defendant on the same day, and no other evidence exists to prove that Gap and the defendant concluded the sale contract on August 17, 2012 between Gap and the defendant on the instant vehicle.

(A) The Plaintiff appears to have filed the instant lawsuit by recognizing Samsung Tren as a sales contract between Samsung C and the Defendant on August 17, 2012. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the instant fraudulent act and restitution on August 17, 2012 between Nonparty A and the Defendant on the premise that the sales contract for the instant automobile was concluded on August 17, 2012, is without merit.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.