A. On April 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against B with the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,887,231 and the amount of KRW 7,364,531 as to KRW 17% per annum from April 1, 2010 to the date of full payment.” The instant payment order was finalized on April 27, 2010.

B. B, with respect to 1/5 shares (hereinafter “instant real estate”) out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) on October 27, 2016, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) that was received on October 31, 2016, which was issued on October 31, 2016, under the name of the Suwon District Court (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership has been completed due to the gift contract of this case after the payment order of this case between the Plaintiff of preserved claim and B became final and conclusive, the loan claims recognized in the above payment order can be the preserved bond of creditor's right of revocation.

B. If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da41575, Oct. 27, 2014). It is recognized that the Defendant unilaterally donated the instant real estate to the Defendant under the name of the Defendant on the ground of the instant donation contract in excess of its obligation, and thus, ought to be restored to its original state.