1. A sales contract concluded on January 17, 2017 between the Defendant and Nonparty C on each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, setting the deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the period of KRW 36 months from September 15, 2014, with respect to the 405 Datel-gun Dtel 405, Jin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

In the meantime, when the auction procedure was initiated to the Changwon District Court E in accordance with the application of the New Young-gu Agricultural Cooperative, a collateral security right holder, with respect to the above officetel building, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C to claim the return of the deposit (C) and was sentenced to the judgment on October 17, 2017, “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000,000.”

B. On January 17, 2017, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with C as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 31, 2017.

On the other hand, the defendant is the wife of C's omitted network F.

C. C’s property condition C is in excess of the obligation as of the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract and the date of conclusion of the instant argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. According to the facts of recognition of Paragraph 1 of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of deposit against C is the preserved right of the revocation of the fraudulent act.

B. According to the facts of recognition of a fraudulent act Paragraph (1), although C was in excess of its obligation at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, it is reasonable to deem that the insolvent C knowingly sold each of the instant real estate to the Defendant, even though it was in excess of its obligation, and that it was aware that C would decrease the creditors’ joint security, including the Plaintiff, and thereby prejudice creditors. Therefore, the instant sales

C. It is deemed that C was aware of the aforementioned circumstances in light of its property status and financial ability at the time of the presumption of intention and bad faith.