1. The sales contract concluded on April 22, 2015 between the Defendant and B is revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with C as follows, and the pertinent money was loaned to each other, and B jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above loans owed to C by the Plaintiff.

(1) B B of a self-reliance deposit agreement on January 22, 2013, and B of a loan transaction agreement on January 22, 2013

B. On April 22, 2015, B entered into a sales contract of KRW 68,00,000 for the purchase price (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On April 22, 2015, B decided that the Defendant take over the collateral security obligation of KRW 15,00,000. On April 22, 2015, Daejeon District Court completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) to the Defendant under the title of Article 48831 of the Daejeon District Court.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, B did not own any property other than the instant real estate.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 9, 12, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the result of each fact-finding reply to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the head of Seo-gu Daejeon, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the factual relations as seen earlier prior to the establishment of a fraudulent act, B disposed of the instant real estate, the only property of which is its own property under excess of the obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act against creditors, including the Plaintiff, and the intent of the Defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed.

B. 1) The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s bona fide defense is the wind that the Defendant acquired the instant real estate in order to move before and after marriage, but is deferred marriage, and B is residing in the instant real estate by leasing the instant real estate to the former owner B in KRW 50,00,000. The Defendant did not know that the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors, including the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant sales contract. 2) The Defendant did not state that the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors, including the Plaintiff.