2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff has a damage claim of KRW 100 million against D.

D In a state without any property, D donated KRW 20,00,000 to Defendant B on October 26, 2010, KRW 20,000,000 on March 14, 2011, KRW 19,000,000 on October 4, 2011, and KRW 7,50,000 on October 5, 201, while Defendant C donated each of them to Defendant C on October 26, 2010, KRW 20,000 on October 26, 200, KRW 10,000 on October 29, 201.

D Each gift of this case is a fraudulent act that causes damage to the plaintiff.

Therefore, each of the above gift contracts should be revoked, and the Defendants should pay the donated money to their original state.

2. The fact that judgment D remitted KRW 20,00,000 to Defendant B’s account on October 26, 201, KRW 20,000,000 on March 14, 201, KRW 19,000 on October 4, 2011, KRW 7,500,000 on October 5, 201, and KRW 7,500,000 on October 26, 201; the fact that the Defendant C remitted the money to Defendant C’s account on October 26, 2010; KRW 20,000,000 on October 10, 201, is no dispute between the parties.

However, the above facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the above deposited money was donated to the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that there was a gift contract between D and the defendants is without merit.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements set forth in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 to 3, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ nominal account, which deposited money, as seen earlier, was opened in the name of the Defendants for securities transaction and opened in the name of D to be used by D.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.