The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the contract of donation and the cancellation of transfer of ownership registration by asserting that the Plaintiff’s donation by B to the Defendant of one half of the real estate in its name constituted a fraudulent act.

The Defendant asserted that, as the real owner of the instant real estate, he was only entitled to receive the refund of the said shares in title trust to B, the said gift does not constitute a fraudulent act.

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the fact that the Defendant trusted the above shares to B.

Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the preserved claim against B and the judgment that B had been in excess of the obligation at the time of donation is clearly indicated in the lower judgment. Thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal to this different purport is not acceptable.

In addition, since the remaining arguments related to this are first asserted in the final appeal, they cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.