A. The contract of gift concluded on November 28, 2018 between G and the Defendant shall be revoked.

A. On September 7, 2015, H loaned KRW 6.5 million to G at an annual interest rate of 29.9%, G was in arrears with interest payment. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the above loan claim against H from H with respect to G.

B. On August 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against G with the Seoul Northern District Court 2018 tea661, and issued a payment order stating that “G shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 29.9% per annum from June 19, 2018 to the date of complete payment” with respect to KRW 5,180,570, and KRW 3,776,592 among them, and the payment order was finalized on August 25, 2018.

C. On November 28, 2018, G donated 1075 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, who is a mother of the Defendant, at the time of inn water, which he/she owns (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 3, 2018.

At the time of the instant donation contract, G had no particular property other than the instant real estate, and was in excess of its obligation.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), this Court I, each fact inquiry about the Court Administration, or the result of the order to submit financial transaction information, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the existence of the preserved claim is recognized, the Plaintiff had the claim for the amount of money transferred to G at the time of the instant donation contract, and thus, the above claim is a preserved claim seeking the revocation of the fraudulent act against the said donation contract.

B. The debtor's intent of deception is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the creditor, unless there are special circumstances, since the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and replacing it with money easily consumed or transferring it to another person without compensation, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferor did not have bad faith is the beneficiary.

Supreme Court Decision 201. 201