(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.04.06 2016가합101009



1. Revocation of the relevant gift agreement between Defendant C and Nonparty E as shown in attached Table 1.

2. Defendant C shall each be the Plaintiff.


1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties, etc. 1) E was closed when the voluntary auction on the building of the hospital was commenced while operating G Hospital (Medical Care Institution No. H) located in the Siljin-si from October 17, 2008 to March 8, 2010. From March 3, 2011 to February 19, 2012, E lent I’s medical license to operate the J Hospital (Medical Care Institution No. K) with I as the representative of I at the same place. From February 20, 2012 to July 4, 2013, E lent a medical license from L to operate the M Hospital (Medical Care Institution No. N) at the same place without distinguishing the above hospital operated at the same place (hereinafter “O Hospital”).

(2) Defendant C is E’s wife, and Defendant D is a nurse who worked at each of the above hospitals operated by E during the period from April 2009 to December 30, 2013.

B. According to the agreement concluded on November 17, 2010 between the Plaintiffs and E, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against E seeking payment of KRW 1,237,242,490, out of the unpaid amount to be paid by E to the Plaintiffs, and interest thereon KRW 194,825,00, totaling KRW 1,432,067,490 ( Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch Branch 2013Ga2145).

On February 20, 2014, the Seogu District Court rendered a judgment that “E shall pay to the Plaintiffs 1,432,067,490 won with the interest of 20% per annum from March 8, 2013 to the day of full payment.”

On November 12, 2015, the Daejeon High Court dismissed E’s appeal and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 1, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 13, 14, 15, and Eul No. 14 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants filed the instant lawsuit after one year from the date on which they became aware of the grounds for revocation.