1. A sales contract concluded on July 3, 2014 between the Defendant and Nonparty B on each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty B entered into a membership agreement with the Plaintiff and obtained a credit card from the Plaintiff, and used it. On June 20, 2014, Nonparty B borrowed KRW 10,500,000 from the Plaintiff.

On January 4, 2015, the credit card use price and loans in arrears as of January 4, 2015 amount to KRW 15,281,526.

B. B, on July 3, 2014, entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On July 22, 2014, on each of the instant real estate, on July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of ownership transfer with the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office (70630).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the number of branch offices; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the response to the submission of documents to the Maritime Daegu Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s credit card use price and loan claim against B may be the preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation subject to the instant sales contract. The act of B, the obligor, selling each of the instant real estate, the sole property of the Defendant, and completing the registration of ownership transfer, constitutes a fraudulent act with the intent of undermining general creditors including the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to have been malicious (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). Therefore, the instant sales contract is revoked as a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, is obligated to restore the obligor B to its original state, and is obligated to cancel the above registration procedure for ownership transfer

3. The defendant's defense is alleged to the effect that the fraudulent act of this case was bona fide, but evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is proved respectively.