1. The sales contract concluded on July 14, 2016 between the Defendant and C is KRW 38,42,309.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff has a claim for interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 26% per annum from December 29, 2001 to the date of full payment with respect to C as to KRW 8,003,592 and KRW 7,200,000 among them.

(hereinafter “instant claim”). The sum of principal and interest of the instant claim up to March 29, 2018, which is the date of closing the argument, is KRW 38,422,309.

B. On July 14, 2016, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C to set the sales price of KRW 25,000,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on the same day.

C. As to the instant real estate, 16,800,000 won with respect to the maximum debt amount, and the right to collateral security against the debtor as the defendant and the mortgagee Co., Ltd. was established on July 28, 2016.

The market price of the instant real estate is KRW 39,300,000 as of the date of the instant sales contract, and is KRW 39,700,000 as of November 20, 2017, which was at the time of appraisal.

E. The instant real estate was the only real estate C at the time of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 3, and fact-finding to the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the result of fact-finding to the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the result of appraiser E's appraisal, the purport

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim in this case against C is a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, and the act of replacing the instant real estate, the sole property of which is the obligor C, with an easily valuable money for consumption, constitutes a fraudulent act committed by the Plaintiff and other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420, Apr. 14, 1998), and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been committed by the beneficiary, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the Plaintiff may exercise the obligee’s right of revocation against the Defendant and seek restitution, barring any special circumstance.

B. The defendant.