1. The sales contract concluded on July 21, 2016 between the defendant and B with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the defendant and B is 34.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 12, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B in Daegu District Court 2007Gau309199, and received a decision of performance recommendation as follows. The decision of performance recommendation was finalized on January 4, 2008.

Plaintiff

A. C For 25,50,988 Won and 17,362,280 among them:

B. B is jointly and severally with C.

Of the money stated in paragraph (1), 20,878,819 won and 14,233,738 won among them shall be paid at the rate of 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the date of full payment.

The principal and interest calculated based on the decision on performance recommendation as of December 29, 2016 on the remaining claims is 34,751,380 won [26,678,03 National Card 2,400,734 won in delay damages of 26,678,038 won in balance of principal (ELD Card 17,072,943 National Card 11,605,095 won)].

B. B’s disposal of real estate 1) B on July 21, 2016, the Defendant and the Defendant indicated as indicated on the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

2) The sales contract for the instant case is concluded (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the instant apartment was the only real estate owned by B.

3) The defendant is the father of B. The defendant is the father of B. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and

2. The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

A. The fraudulent act of the sales contract of this case is a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, to sell the apartment of this case, which is the only property B, and complete the registration of ownership transfer under the condition that the fraudulent act B bears the obligation against the plaintiff based on the decision of performance recommendation.

B appears to have known that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, which is the creditor at the time of concluding the sales contract for the apartment of this case, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, unless there are special circumstances.