1. On November 10, 2014, the Defendant and Nonparty C made a reservation to trade the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty C.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty C and the Plaintiff’s real estate sales contract 1) C are Nonparty D’s non-party D (hereinafter “non-party D”) around January 11, 201.

(2) On March 22, 2011, the Daejeon Seodong-gu E, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, 128,724 square meters of forest land and 8,264 square meters of the said clan prepared a letter of promise to sell and purchase real estate with F, a Do Governor of the said clan. (2) On March 22, 2011, the area of G forest E 128,724 square meters was divided into 5,951 square meters, H forest and 3,306 square meters, and C entered into a sales contract with F, G, and H forest with the purchase price of KRW 250,00,000 on March 23, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the said real estate on April 1, 2011.

3) Meanwhile, around March 2011, the Plaintiff purchased H forest land from C with the price of KRW 500 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(4) On April 1, 2011, C paid a purchase price of KRW 500 million to C over several occasions. On April 1, 2011, C completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on H forest land to the I designated by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff, upon the rescission of the instant sales contract, purchased the above woodland from C in order to construct a gas station in H forest. However, due to statutory restrictions, the purpose of the instant sales contract cannot be achieved because it was impossible to construct a gas station due to the foregoing defect. Thus, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C in the Daejeon District Court 2013Gahap9448, Nov. 1, 2013, filed a claim for the refund of the purchase price. In the instant case, the court rendered a judgment on November 6, 2014, stating that “C shall pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.”

C. C’s financial status and dispositive act 1) After the judgment of the first instance court on the claim for the refund of the purchase price was rendered, C’s real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on November 10, 2014.

As to this case, the mother of the Defendant, who is his mother, and the pre-contract with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).