1. The sales contract concluded on July 31, 2018 between the defendant and the non-party network D on the real estate stated in the separate sheet was 30.

1. The facts in the separate sheet of facts do not conflict between the parties, or each of the entries in Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 7 (including each of the numbers) can be admitted as to the whole of the pleadings.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a debtor's property is insufficient to repay all of his/her obligation, a fraudulent act, intent of deception, bad faith, and bad faith 1), if the debtor provided real property to a certain creditor, which is the only property of the debtor, as payment in kind, and the registration of ownership transfer, such creditor obtains satisfaction of obligation prior to other creditors, while other creditors are placed in a more unfavorable position than the previous creditor as the joint security has decreased within the scope of the same, this would immediately be deemed as prejudicial to the interests of other creditors. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the act of the debtor, which is the only property of the debtor, provides real estate to one of his/her creditors, as payment in kind, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da23207, Oct. 29, 196). In such a case, the debtor's intention is presumed to be the debtor's intention in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act. Thus, if the beneficiary is presumed to be acting, then the beneficiary is liable to prove his/her good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da419, supra.

(2) The act of offering the deceased as payment in kind to the Defendant becomes a fraudulent act in relation to other general creditors, and is presumed to be the Defendant’s bad faith as the obligor’s deceased’s deceased will and the beneficiary. (2) As to this, the Defendant became aware of the deceased’s mother, who is his father, and belongs to the deceased, who is infinite.