1. Change of a policyholder on February 9, 2018, concluded between the Defendant and C (D) with respect to the insurance indicated in the separate sheet.

1. In fact, the agreement on the loan amount of KRW 7,00,000 on December 24, 2018 on the loan amount of KRW 7,00,000 on December 24, 2018 on the loan amount of KRW 7,00,00,000 on December 24, 2014, the date of loan of KRW 10.7% (as of June 21, 2019) remaining 7,00,000 (as of June 21, 2019) with interest of KRW 1,00,00,000 interest of KRW 1,00,00,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 1,086, KRW 1,65, KRW 1,92, KRW 1986, KRW 86,365,192, KRW 865,198, KRW 986.

A. The Plaintiff concluded two loans of KRW 7,00,000 with C as indicated below, and loaned KRW 14,00,000 in total. C is a total of KRW 16,279,351 as of June 21, 2019 due to delinquency in repayment of the principal and interest of the loan.

B. On February 9, 2018, C and the Defendant (C’s wife) changed the contractor for each insurance contract indicated in the separate sheet in which C were the contracting parties (hereinafter “each insurance contract of this case”).

(hereinafter “Change of policyholder of this case”). On February 9, 2018, the date of change of policyholder of this case, the amount payable out of the refund money for cancellation of each insurance contract of this case as of February 9, 2018 is KRW 4,323,049 in total.

(i) 4,322,969 Won 80).

C had not owned active property, including real estate, as of February 9, 2018, which was the date of the change of the policyholder of the instant case. B

A. On the other hand, the plaintiff did not have any property except the claim for the cancellation refund stated in the paragraph.

The loan, etc. as stated in Paragraph (1) has been in excess of the obligation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, and the court's response to the order of submission of taxation information to the director of the racing office of this court, the result of the court's inquiry and reply to the Court Administration of this Court, the purport

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the establishment of a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff’s credit against C is the preserved claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act, and the obligor’s credit for the cancellation refund money with the value of assets changed to the Defendant under the name of the contractor of each insurance contract of this case under the status of excess of the obligation of C.