1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, from March 201 to June 201 of the same year, ethyl Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “large ethyl”), fluoral processing and luor processing of steel structures, etc., and 15,438,170 won, which were not received from the said company, is the processing price claim.

B. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with regard to real estate listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the purchase price of KRW 2.76 billion, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 29, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Since the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act constituted the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act’s processed claim against ethyl was incurred prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, it constitutes a preserved claim for revocation of the instant fraudulent act.

Furthermore, barring any special circumstance, the act of a debtor to sell real estate, which is its sole property, and to change it into money easily for consumption, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor at all times (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420, Apr. 14, 1998). According to the evidence and the fact-finding results as to each of the above facts, it is recognized that the instant real estate is the only property of lusene as at the time of the instant sales contract. Thus, the instant sales contract becomes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, and is presumed to have the debtor’s intent to commit fraud.

B. As to the bona fide defense, the Defendant asserts that he did not know that the conclusion of the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act.

According to the above-mentioned evidence, each of the above-mentioned evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and the witness Gap's testimony and arguments, the defendant is a corporation corporation located in Busan Nam-gu.