1. A donation contract concluded on May 7, 2014 between the Defendant and Nonparty B regarding each real estate in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 15,00,000 to Nonparty B for the lending period of 38 months and interest rate of 20% per annum; (b) agreed to collect KRW 57,454 per month according to the method of repayment of principal and interest equal.

B. However, B lost the benefit of time on August 15, 2014 due to its failure to repay its principal and interest, and as of the same day, B became liable for the total amount of KRW 9,484,922.

C. Meanwhile, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant, the denyingr of B on May 7, 2014 (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”), and on May 8, 2014, the B completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Cheongju District Court No. 11859.

(hereinafter “this case’s transfer registration”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, fact-finding results with respect to the Minister of Court Administration of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, Eul's act of donation to the defendant of this case, which is the only real estate of its own, by the defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, as an act of reducing the joint security of the plaintiff and general creditors. The defendant's bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary

As to this, the defendant argued that the property of this case was donated by the division of property while the defendant decided to divorce with B, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act. However, even if the defendant's argument is based on the defendant's argument, the above argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant did not know that the gift contract of this case was prejudicial to the general creditors of the plaintiff et al., and therefore, the defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the defendant's defense is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant and B are dissatisfied with this.