1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty B entered into a credit card use contract with Nonparty C Co., Ltd. and used the credit card. On June 9, 2013, Nonparty C Co., Ltd transferred the credit card payment claim against Nonparty D Co., Ltd. on June 9, 2013, and Nonparty D Co., Ltd applied for payment order against Nonparty B as of August 6, 2013.

B. On April 29, 2015, Nonparty D Co., Ltd. transferred its claim against B to the Plaintiff, and notified the transfer of claim against B at that time.

C. On September 13, 2017, Nonparty B sold to the Defendant the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) that is its sole property, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on September 29, 2017.

(No. 127669) d. of the Suyang Branch of the District Court.

Nonparty B is the sole property of the instant real estate equivalent to KRW 23,672,00,00 for active property. Nonparty B is a small property with a total of KRW 77,096,207, including a debt against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the non-party B's sale of the instant real estate, the sole property in excess of his/her obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the above sales contract should be revoked because it is acknowledged that the non-party B's intention and the defendant's bad faith are recognized.

The defendant asserts that this does not constitute a fraudulent act as the non-party B sold the instant real estate at an appropriate price and used it for the repayment of debts with the purchase price.

B. 1) We examine whether the instant real estate sale constitutes a fraudulent act. 2) It is easy for an obligor to sell and consume real estate, which is the sole property.