A. The Defendant B’s gift agreement concluded on June 19, 2015 is revoked.

(b).

A. The Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 144,211,323 to C under B’s guarantee from January 1, 2014 to June 15, 2015, and received KRW 48,783,501 as the price.

On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B and the above Company seeking the payment of the price for the goods (14,211,323 won - 48,783,501 won) and was sentenced to the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (Seoul Western District Court 2015Kadan225861). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On June 19, 2015, B entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant, who is his spouse (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the same day as stated in Section 1(b) of the Disposition.

C. At the time of the donation contract of this case, B did not have any particular active property other than the real estate of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 to 3, 5, 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition as to the occurrence of obligee's right of revocation, B has resulted in a reduction in the joint security of the general obligee by donating the real estate of this case to the Defendant under the condition that the Plaintiff bears an obligation equivalent to KRW 95,427,82 against the Plaintiff. As such, the instant gift agreement constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, which is the obligee.

B seems to have been aware that the joint collateral of the claim would be reduced due to the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, and as long as the intention of the damage of B, which is the debtor, is recognized, the defendant's intention to understand is presumed also.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may exercise the right of revocation on the gift contract of this case against the Defendant, the beneficiary, and seek restitution accordingly.

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that the contract of this case was concluded for division of property while a divorce is made with B, and thus the contract of this case was concluded.