1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant B’s KRW 44,224,689 and KRW 25,391,557 among them, Defendant B’s Co., Ltd. shall begin on November 3, 2018.

1. The reasons for the claim are as shown in the annexed sheet of claim;

【Defendant 1, 2: Defendant 3: No dispute over the admission of a confession, Gap 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Defendant B and C are obliged to pay the loan and delay damages to the Plaintiff, as described in paragraph (1) of this Article, to determine the cause of the claim against Defendant B and C.

3. Determination as to the cause of claim against Defendant D

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant C donated the instant real estate, the sole property of which is his own property under excess of the obligation, to Defendant C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer. Defendant C is a malicious debtor who was aware of the reduction of liability property by the said donation, and Defendant D also is also a beneficiary of bad faith. Therefore, the Plaintiff claims for the cancellation of the said gift contract, which is a fraudulent act, and the subsequent restitution to its original state. 2) Defendant D’s assertion is transferred the instant real estate to Defendant C as compensation and division of property following the divorce with Defendant C.

In addition, Defendant D is a bona fide beneficiary who did not know about the financial status of Defendant C.

Therefore, the gift is not a fraudulent act.

B. The division of property following the divorce 1 is a system with the economic difficulty of supporting the other party in the economic aspect of the liquidation of joint property achieved through mutual cooperation between the other party during the marriage. Even if the debtor with the excessive debt has a result of reducing joint security against the general creditor by transferring a certain property to his/her spouse while divorced and transferring a certain property to the spouse, such division of property is not subject to revocation by a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that such division of property is excessive beyond the considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, provided that it is not subject to revocation by a creditor.