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

A. The sales contract was concluded on April 16, 2019 between D and Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2015, Nonparty D prepared and delivered a written confirmation to the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff sustained damages of KRW 450 million due to D’s negligence, and would compensate the Plaintiff for such damages.”

B. D acquired the ownership of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 2, 2019 in circumstances with no particular financial resources, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant B on April 16, 2019 on the ground of the same date sales contract with respect to the instant real estate.

On April 23, 2019, Defendant C completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon amounting to KRW 2550 million on the grounds of the contract to establish the same date as to the instant real estate.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1-3, 5-7, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff is seeking revocation of the fraudulent act against the Defendants. The Plaintiff’s establishment of the preserved claim is seeking revocation of the fraudulent act against the Defendants. The Plaintiff’s monetary claim against D established prior to the date of the sales contract between D and Defendant B on the instant real estate and the date of the lease contract between the Defendants is the preserved claim.

B. Unless there exist special circumstances, the obligor’s selling of real estate, which is one of his/her own property, and changing it into money that is easily consumed by selling real estate in excess of his/her obligation would constitute a fraudulent act. The obligor’s intent, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of joint collateral for the claim, and does not require any intent or intent to impair the obligee, and if the obligor sells real estate in excess of his/her obligation and alters it into money easily for consumption of real estate, the obligor’s intent of deception is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da2515, Apr. 9, 199). As stated in the basic facts, the obligor D against the Plaintiff, sells the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of his/her obligation on April 16, 2019, and on the same day.