1. Defendant B and Defendant C jointly receive real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B and C shared 1/2 shares each of the Fdong H (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) of the building E in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”) Fdong G (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

B. On July 14, 2018, Defendant B and C leased the instant real estate to the Plaintiff with the lease deposit of KRW 210,000,000,000 from August 8, 2018 to August 7, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 210,000,000 to the Defendant B and C around that time.

C. On August 13, 2018, Defendant B and C entered into a pre-sale agreement with Defendant D on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) and completed the provisional registration on August 16, 2018 on the right to claim the transfer of all co-owners’ shares (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”).

The Seoul Northern District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on September 19, 2018 on the instant real estate as H.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). On October 8, 2018, at the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff made a demand for distribution based on the claim for return of lease deposit under the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “claim for Return of Lease Deposit”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the claim for the refund of the lease deposit, the instant lease contract was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s demand for distribution based on the claim for the refund of the lease deposit in the instant auction procedure on October 8, 2018.

Therefore, Defendant B and C are jointly obligated to pay KRW 210,00,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time as the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, as sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination on the claim for revocation of a fraudulent act

A. A claim protected by obligee’s right of revocation is, in principle, a fraudulent act.