2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor sought revocation of the fraudulent act and compensation for value against the Defendant for the following reasons.

① On August 21, 2012, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) loaned KRW 32 million out of the loan amounting to KRW 9,443,660 out of the loan amount around October 20, 2015, with the rate of 8.60% per annum to the obligor B and the period of 60 months.

② On February 26, 2014, B entered into a contract to donate (hereinafter “instant donation”) to the Defendant, who is the spouse, on the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) which is the only property, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 4, 2014.

③ The instant donation constitutes a fraudulent act and is presumed to be the Defendant’s bad faith. Since it is impossible to refund the original property because the establishment registration was completed near the maximum debt amount of KRW 117,00,000 on March 5, 2015 with respect to the instant real property, the instant donation is revoked within the scope of KRW 9,443,660, which is the amount of the preserved claim, and the return of the value is sought.

④ On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor received the instant claim from the Plaintiff and applied for intervention in succession, and the Plaintiff withdrawn from the lawsuit, and the Defendant consented thereto.

B. The defendant's assertion that the gift of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act for the following reasons.

① On August 20, 2012, B, while lending a new loan to the Plaintiff on August 20, 2012, the establishment of the right to collateral security was completed with C-owned vehicles of KRW 16 million with the maximum debt amount. However, on February 2, 2014, at the time of the instant donation, it cannot be deemed that the gravity of the said vehicle was at the risk of being unable to receive the Plaintiff’s claim due to the instant donation of KRW 21 million.

② The instant real estate had already been subject to the right to collateral security of KRW 117,00,000,000 for maximum debt amount. However, the real estate value at the time did not reach the said value, and thus, cannot be deemed to have accrued the Plaintiff’s benefit from the instant donation.

(3)