2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

1. A. A. The gift agreement concluded on June 10, 2008 between Defendant Han-A and Nonparty KimCC on real estate listed in the annexed Table 1 shall be revoked within the limit of the OOO members.

B. Defendant Han-A shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

2. A. A. A. The gift agreement concluded on June 10, 2008 between Defendant Han-A and Nonparty KimCC on real estate listed in attached Table 2 shall be revoked within the limit of OO0 won.

B. Defendant Han-A shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. A. A. The gift agreement concluded on February 16, 2009 between Defendant KimB and Nonparty UD with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 shall be revoked within the scope of OOO.

B. Defendant KimB shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the date of this judgment to the date of full payment.

4. A. A. The gift agreement concluded on February 16, 2009 between Defendant KimB and Nonparty UD on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 shall be revoked within the limit of OOO.

B. Defendant KimB shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the date of this judgment to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff has a total of OOOOO claims against EE (hereinafter referred to as "EE"), while EE has a provisional payment claim against KimCC and UD, while KimCC and UDD have a debt excess status, KimCC completed each registration of ownership transfer on June 10, 2008 for each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 list with the defendant HanA on the gift on June 10, 2008, and UND completed each registration of ownership transfer on February 16, 2009 for each real estate listed in the separate sheet 3 and 4 list with the defendant KimB on the gift on February 16, 2009. This is a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors, including EE, and the plaintiff seeks revocation and restitution of the fraudulent act against the defendants by subrogation of EE in order to preserve the tax claim against EE.

2. Determination

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Where other creditors have been released from a court on behalf of the same garnishee in the course of the continuation of a lawsuit by subrogation of the same debtor, if the subject matter of the lawsuit is the same as that of the two lawsuit, the lawsuit pending later is an unlawful lawsuit brought in violation of the prohibition of double lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da12517, Nov. 25, 1994; 94Da12524, Nov. 25, 1994). In addition, or exchanging claims that the creditor intends to preserve while claiming the revocation of fraudulent act and restitution to the original state, it is merely a change in the assertion as to the method of attack that makes it reasonable for the creditor to revoke the right to revoke the fraudulent act and the right to restitution to the original state, and it does not change the subject matter or the claim itself, so the previous lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit are the same as the subject matter of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da80503, Jul. 5, 2012)

On June 14, 2010, the record in Eul evidence 6, when comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, and on June 14, 2010, the EF, the creditor of the EE, and GG, before the lawsuit in this case was pending, filed a lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act against the Defendants on behalf of the EE on behalf of the Defendants, and the claim for revocation of the obligee’s right of revocation was a claim for damages due to a tort against KimCC and UD in the above lawsuit, and the EF and GG between the Defendant HanA and Non-Party KimB and Non-Party UD on June 10, 208, the revocation and restoration of the gift contract concluded on June 10, 208 and between the Defendant KimB and Non-Party U.D on each real estate listed in attached Tables 3 and 4, and the fact that the above lawsuit is pending [the Seoul Central District Court, Seoul, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the Seoul High Court on February 2018, 20198).

In the end, the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is against the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit since the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is a lawsuit seeking cancellation and restitution of the same legal act on behalf of the same debtor while the other creditor is continuing the creditor subrogation lawsuit

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition.