The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) loaned D a loan of KRW 1 billion on July 8, 2009, and KRW 5.9 billion on April 3, 2013, respectively, to D, and C guaranteed each of the above loans within the limit of KRW 7.8 billion.

B. On April 30, 2013, A was declared bankrupt in Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2013Hahap54, and the Plaintiff was appointed as A’s bankruptcy administrator on the same day.

C. After that, as D and C did not repay each of the above loans, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with D and C, etc. on November 27, 2015, with the Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea30,04687. On December 18, 2015, the said court issued a payment order to the Plaintiff for KRW 5,128,630,002 within the limit of KRW 7.8 billion and delay damages for KRW 2,013,83,918 among them, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on January 7, 2016 against C.

On the other hand, C transferred to the Defendant KRW 100 million on February 10, 2015, and KRW 100 million on February 27, 2015, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as "the remittance of this case"). 【The grounds for recognition: the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 7 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that C donated total of KRW 200 million to the defendant while in excess of his/her obligation. Thus, the above donation constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant asserts that C is seeking revocation of and recovery from the gift. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that C's total of KRW 200 million transferred by the remittance of this case to the defendant does not constitute C's responsible property, and thus, it cannot be established.

B. (1) According to the fact that the establishment of the preserved claim is recognized, a claim based on the above payment order that the plaintiff held against C is the preserved claim.

(2) Whether a fraudulent act is constituted (A) the obligee’s right of revocation is known to the effect that the obligor would prejudice the obligee.