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

A. On January 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with D, setting the lease term of KRW 33,00,000 for the lease deposit from February 18, 2013 to February 17, 2015, and paid KRW 4,000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 29,00,000 for the lease term of KRW 29,00,000 on February 18, 2013.

B. On May 7, 2013, upon a voluntary auction application filed by Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., a creditor of the instant apartment, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on May 7, 2013, but the Plaintiff was not paid any dividend in the said auction procedure.

C. Meanwhile, C paid KRW 3,990,000 on January 9, 2013 to the Defendant, the wife of D, and KRW 18,00,000 on February 18, 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant money”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 11 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since C in excess of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant paid each of the instant donations constitutes a gift, each of the instant donations must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff each of the instant donations and damages for delay due to restitution to its original state.

B. If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da57320, May 12, 1998; 2006Da11494, May 11, 2006). In cases where a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act claims that the debtor’s act of paying the money to the beneficiary was a gift to the beneficiary of an existing obligation, the beneficiary asserts that it was received as a repayment for the existing obligation, this constitutes a denial of the creditor’s assertion. Accordingly, the said act of paying the money constitutes a fraudulent act.