1. As to motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet:

A. A contract for the transfer of name concluded on June 10, 2015 between the Defendant and B.

Facts of recognition

In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 25,000 to B on December 26, 2012, 36 months, interest rate of KRW 3.9% per annum, overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, and the repayment method of principal and interest in equal installments. Eul paid only KRW 19,908,651 out of the loan principal and interest, and did not pay the remainder of principal and interest from June 10, 2015. As the plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the loan principal and interest from June 10, 2015, B acquired the loan interest and interest claim of KRW 5,21,534 as of June 10, 2015, B transferred the name of the defendant on June 10, 2015, B was the only fact that the defendant had been living together with the plaintiff at each of the above financial institutions around the time when the loan was made.

argument and Judgment

A. As to the claim of this case where the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the title transfer contract of this case and the cancellation of registration on the ground of fraudulent act, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not commit a fraudulent act since he had had the right to lend money to B from time to time, and the balance of the debt which was not paid to B remains in 22,00,000 won, and B had no ability to repay the debt to other creditors, so he would have to repay the debt to the defendant with the vehicle of this case, and thus, he transferred the name of the automobile of this case to the defendant.

B. In a case where the debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation of creditor is the subject matter of the act.