1. It was concluded on August 1, 2014 with respect to 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B.

1. Determination as to the claim for revocation of a fraudulent act

A. Facts of recognition 1) C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

A) The Plaintiff did not pay national taxes as indicated in the table below against the Plaintiff. A shareholder of C and the representative director B were designated as the secondary taxpayer, but B also did not pay national taxes in arrears. B and the Defendant owned 1/2 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On August 1, 2014, B concluded a donation contract with the Defendant, who was his wife, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

3) At the time of the instant donation contract, B did not have any specific assets other than the 1/2 shares out of the instant real estate. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1-7 evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings,

B. Determination of this case’s gift agreement constitutes a fraudulent act as it reduces the joint security for general creditors, including the Plaintiff, and is also recognized as the intention to commit a fraudulent act.

It is presumed that the Defendant was aware that the instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act.

The gift contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant must cancel the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to shares of 1/2 of the real estate of this case to B.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The actual owner who bears the purchase price of the instant real estate alleged by the Defendant is the Defendant, and for convenience, the title trust was held against B, the husband of the instant real estate. Thus, the instant donation contract does not constitute a fraudulent act.

B. According to Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, real estate acquired by one of the married couple in his/her sole name during marriage is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner, so in order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse actually bears the cost of the real estate in question.