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

A. A. Around October 4, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the construction cost of KRW 1,150,000,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to the new construction of D-based franchises (including value-added tax); (b) determined the construction cost of KRW 1,200,000 (including value-added tax); and (c) determined the construction cost of KRW 373,00,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to the new construction of E-ground commercial buildings; and (d) concluded each construction contract (including value-added tax of KRW 2,723,00,000 with respect to the construction cost of the new construction of E-ground commercial buildings; and (e) performed the construction work by June 208.

B. With respect to the above construction contract, B filed a claim against the Plaintiff for confirmation of existence of the obligation on October 23, 2008. The Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the construction cost on August 24, 2009, and the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision on November 22, 2012 that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 269,546,505 [2,723,000,000 x 19.555% per annum 17,310,000 per annum - (41,035,650,000 per annum from the following day to the date of the payment of the construction cost to the date of the complete payment (205,000 per annum 21,693,810,000 per annum 21,209).”

C. B, on February 15, 2011, donated the instant real estate to the Defendant, the wife (hereinafter “instant donation” or “instant donation contract”) of the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On the same day, on February 15, 201, the registration of ownership transfer was completed as the receipt of No. 13286 on February 15, 201, Daejeon District Court Decision 13286.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidences 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion B concluded the instant gift contract with the Defendant, one’s own wife, while in excess of debt, constitutes a fraudulent act.