1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60 million and the interest rate of KRW 15 percent per annum from April 3, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Defendant B had already been in excess of the obligation before entering into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff. While Defendant B had a duty to refund KRW 60,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, which was the sole property owned by the Plaintiff, concluded the instant sales contract in collusion with Defendant C, which was the only property owned by the Plaintiff, and completed the instant transfer of ownership on September 30, 2014. This should be revoked since it was a fraudulent act conducted to evade the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution.

As to this, Defendant C had a loan claim of KRW 65 million against Defendant B at the time of the instant sales contract, but claimed that Defendant B paid additional KRW 75 million to Defendant B, and properly purchased and acquired the instant real estate, etc., and did not commit a fraudulent act by conspiracy with Defendant B.

(b) The act of harming the creditor, who is the object of the obligee's right of revocation, is a juristic act with the object of property right, and thereby means the act in which the debtor's passive property exceeds the positive property or exceeds the debts; and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da27903 delivered on August 27, 2002, etc.). Therefore, first, we examine whether the sales contract of this case exceeds the active property or exceeds the obligation.

There is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), and Eul evidence 3 (including each number), defendant Eul is an active property at the time of the contract of this case.