A. The defendant is the mother of Nonparty B.

B. On April 14, 2011, B transferred KRW 310,00 (40,000 and KRW 530,000,00 to Nonparty C, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and thus, was liable to pay capital gains tax to the Plaintiff as of May 31, 2011. On August 2, 2012, B notified the Plaintiff of the payment of capital gains tax of KRW 135,794,60 (including local income tax), and KRW 149,374,060, including local income tax), as one’s mother’s account, KRW 117,00,00 (hereinafter “instant primary remittance”), KRW 16,00,00,00 to Nonparty C (hereinafter “instant 1 remittance”), KRW 16,00,00,000,000, and KRW 16,000 from each of the above Defendant’s loans (hereinafter “16,201,201,”).

3) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act against the Defendant with the claim against B as the preserved right. The Plaintiff asserted that B’s act of remitting KRW 1,243,00,00 to the Defendant constitutes a gift act, and thus, B’s act was omitted in excess of debt, and thus, the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been the beneficiary. Thus, the contract of donation as of June 2, 201 with KRW 34,515,627 among the gift contract as of June 2, 201 and the contract of donation as of June 13, 2011 should be revoked, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, instead of restitution, should pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,515,627 and delay damages for the aforementioned amount of KRW 60,515,627,00,000, which was remitted by B to the Defendant. The judgment below became final and conclusive around the following time: < Amended by Act No. 12214, Jun. 16, 2014>

① The instant act of remitting the instant 1 and 2 shall be deemed as a contract for a monetary loan for consumption, not a donation contract (hereinafter “instant contract for a monetary loan for consumption”).