1. As to 1/2 shares of real estate in the annexed sheet 1

A. The Defendant and Nonparty B concluded on October 22, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. B imposed global income tax, etc. on B: (a) on May 28, 2010, 2010, B operated a mutual construction business entity called “D” in Yansan-gu, Seoul-si; (b) The Gwangju regional tax office conducted a personal integration investigation on B from September 17, 2018 to October 26, 2018 (from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017) with respect to B; and (c) confirmed the fact that B filed a report by omitting cash sales during the said investigation period.

3) On November 9, 2018, the head of the Jeonju District Tax Office, as indicated in the attached Table 2, determined and notified the payment deadline of KRW 557,212,480, value-added tax, KRW 777,190,470, as indicated in the attached Table 2, as of November 30, 2018. (b) The real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list B (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

1) On October 22, 2018, B entered into a sales contract to sell 100,000,000 shares of the instant apartment in KRW 1/2 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On the same day, B entered into a sales contract to the Defendant, who is the wife of B’s shares of the instant apartment in KRW 1/2,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On October 22, 2018, B completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) with respect to the said apartment in KRW 1/2 shares to the Defendant as the former District Court No. 109078, Oct. 22, 2018.

2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, B’s asset status was in excess of the obligation as shown in the attached Table 3. [The facts that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 14, Gap evidence 4, 5, Gap evidence 8 through 14, Eul evidence 8 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (A) The existence of the preserved claim is required to require that the claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was, in principle, incurred prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act, but there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act, and there is high probability as to the establishment of the claim based on the legal relationship in the near future.