1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

(a) A donation contract concluded on April 27, 2018 between C and D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 15,00,000 to D with the interest rate of KRW 15,00,000 added 6.23% to the COFX standard interest rate for one year, and the period of the loan was determined from March 14, 2017 to March 14, 2018.

Afterwards, the Plaintiff and D extended the lending period under the said lending agreement until March 14, 2019.

B. On May 3, 2018, D completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) on May 3, 2018 due to the Cheongju District Court No. 10631, No. 10631, April 27, 2018 (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”).

(hereinafter “instant transfer registration”). C.

On October 22, 2018, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on October 19, 2018, which was based on a contract for establishing a mortgage, by setting as KRW C, the mortgagee, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount, KRW 280,000,00, under Article 25018 of the Cheongju District Court’s receipt of support for each of the instant real estate.

(hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of the creation of the neighboring district of this case”). 【The ground for recognition 】 Each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant donation contract between D and C is a fraudulent act, and sought the revocation thereof and the cancellation thereof against the Defendant, who is the subsequent purchaser.

As seen above, the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant, a preserved bond, was incurred prior to the instant gift agreement, and thus, the remainder of the requirements is examined below.

A. The act of a debtor's transfer of real estate, the sole property of which is his/her own property, to another person without compensation constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001) and the debtor's intent of deception is presumed as a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 200).