1. The sales contract concluded on March 27, 2014 between the defendant and the non-party B on the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the defendant and the non-party B is 57,200.

1. Basic facts

A. B, as the representative of a corporation C, failed to report KRW 716,835,790 on the principal’s recognized bonus in 201, and received a notice of change in the amount of income from the head of Seogu Tax Office around September 25, 2013.

Since then on May 22, 2014, the head of the Dong-gu Tax Office decided and notified 271,654,867 won of global income tax for the year 201 based on the above recognized bonus amount, but did not pay it. As of May 31, 2014, the amount of national taxes in arrears in B as of May 31, 201 reaches 283,064,350 won including additional dues (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

B On May 20, 1985, the Defendant reported marriage with the Defendant on May 20, 1985, and on June 30, 2014, the Defendant reported divorce with the Defendant.

C. On March 27, 2014, B entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of the Daegu District Court’s registration No. 85135 on April 28, 2014.

At the time of the instant sales contract, the instant real estate was the only real estate owned by B, and B was in excess of its liabilities.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the head of the Dong-gu Tax Office transferred the instant real estate, which is the only property of the principal, to the Defendant, the spouse of the Plaintiff, in order to collect opinions from the taxpayers prior to the instant tax disposition, to B prior to the determination of taxation, constitutes a fraudulent act causing lack of joint security among the general creditors. Even if the instant sales contract has the nature as division of property, it constitutes a fraudulent act as it is excessive beyond a considerable degree.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is proceeding with B on March 27, 2014 for divorce procedures.