2...

A. E received cash services of KRW 4,00,000 on September 10, 2018 using the Plaintiff’s credit card issued by the Plaintiff. As of September 3, 2019, the debt as of September 3, 2019 is 5,296,780 by adding up the fee and late payment charge (24%).

B. On December 10, 2018, E entered into a donation contract (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) with the Defendant, who is the son of December 10, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer stated in Section 2 of the Disposition.

(hereinafter “instant transfer registration”). C.

As of December 10, 2018, E’s active property as of December 10, 2018 was KRW 2,438,600, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 5,500, KRW 17,938,600, KRW 5,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 17,938,600, KRW 6,897,00, KRW 1 card obligation, KRW 3,340,00, KRW 4,000, KRW 3,900, KRW 3,000, KRW 30,209,00, KRW 48,346,000, KRW 0.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, Eul 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The “legal act detrimental to the obligee,” which is the requirement for the obligee’s right of revocation, refers to a juristic act that causes a decrease in the obligor’s assets by disposing of the obligor’s assets, thereby making it impossible for the obligee to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims because the obligor’s assets fall short of joint security due to a decrease in the obligor’s assets or the joint security that was already insufficient. As such, such fraudulent act may be established not only in cases where the obligor had already been in excess of obligations prior to the disposal of assets, but also in cases where the obligor

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6808, Apr. 29, 2005). The obligor’s intent, which is a subjective element of fraudulent act, refers to recognizing that the joint collateral of a claim is insufficient, and does not require any intent or intent to impair the obligee.

A debtor shall perform any act of donation.