2. Determination as to the ground for the claim against the first real estate

A. In full view of the fact that it is recognized as above on the determination of the fraudulent act and the duty of restoration of the gift contract of this case, H is highly likely to have already been disposed of or wasteed to a considerable portion of the amount that H acquired on a large scale from many victims including the above plaintiffs at the time of the donation contract of this case, H is liable for damages arising from illegal acts committed by plaintiffs A, B, C, and D, and the contract of this case that H, the debtor of which concluded with the defendant G, constitutes a fraudulent act that causes excess of the obligation or deepens, and Defendant G and the subsequent purchaser, the beneficiary of this case, are presumed to have been aware of it. Accordingly, the donation contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the beneficiary of this case, Defendant G, the subsequent purchaser, bears the duty to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, and the registration for cancellation of ownership transfer.

B. Defendant G alleged that Defendant G entered into the instant gift contract and title trust contract in good faith as follows. A) Defendant G knew of the fact that he had a female to H around 2006, but it was referred to due to H’s lending of a letter. However, Defendant G became aware that H again became aware of another female, and thereafter, Defendant G became aware that he would visit the other female, and she also grown to a certain extent.

B. Since the house living by Defendant G and H is located in the name of the starting machine, Defendant G cannot exercise the right to the said house when it is divorced from the future, and H dosman.