It is before October 28, 2016, the date of remittance.

(8) In addition to the money deposited in the Defendants’ account at the date of the instant remittance, the CCC’s active property is deemed as active property.

○○○○○-si ○○○-dong, 695-135, and 1 parcel No. 401, the fourth floor above the ground (54 million won at the market price)

reasonable) On the other hand, on the other hand, only the above 538,059,750 won tax liability was imposed on the small property.

(9) The above facts do not conflict between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1 to 11, and No. 3 and 4

Each entry and pleading may be recognized by the purport of the whole statement and pleading, and there is no evidence that interferes with it.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

(1) A donation contract was concluded for the money remitted by the debtor to another person’s deposit account.

any other person who objectively transfers money in such manner between the debtor and any other person.

there is a consensus with respect to grant free of charge to a person who will be ultimately attributed to such person.

such remittance act is subject to creditor's right of revocation, and such remittance act is subject to such right of revocation.

Any creditor who asserts that he/she is a fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012)

(1) Mainly, between Defendant AA and Nonparty CCC, 49,755,751 dated October 28, 2016

(1) The gift agreement between the Corporation and the CCC, and the amount of KRW 88,215,350 entered into on the same day

D. Each of the plaintiffs shall be revoked. The defendant AA shall be revoked 49,755,751 won, and the defendant BB shall be revoked.

88,215,350 won and each of the above amounts shall be interest rateed from the day following the day when the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5% interest shall be paid in 5% interest.

(2) Preliminaryly, as to the account of ○ Bank between Defendant AA and CCC

The Defendant’s title trust agreement entered into with respect to the remittance of KRW 49,755,751 on October 28, 2016,

BB and CCC on October 28, 2016 to the account of △ Bank.

The name trust agreement concluded with respect to the remittance of KRW 88,215,350 shall be revoked, respectively. The defendant shall be revoked.

AAA transfers to CCC deposit claims of the above KRW 49,755,751.

○ Bank notice of the purport of the assignment of claims, and Defendant BB notice of the purport of the assignment of claims, and Defendant BB notice of the above KRW 8,215,350

The deposit claim shall be transferred to the CCC and the purport of the transfer of the claim shall be notified to the △ Bank.

O's purport of appeal: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and all of the claims against the Defendants are dismissed.

(1) The CCC is a representative director of KK Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KK Construction”), and Defendant AA is a wife of CCC, and Defendant BB is a child of CCC.

(2) On October 28, 2016, with respect to the case in which KK Construction filed a complaint against Nonparty D, a director of the said company, for embezzlement, DD wired KRW 150 million under the name of the criminal agreement to the △△△ account in the name of KK Construction, under the name of KK Construction.

(3) Nonparty EE, the accounting officer of KK, is Nonparty EE, according to the direction of CCC, October 28, 2016.

① Transfer of KRW 49,755,751 to the ○ Bank Account (110-128-953680) in the name of Defendant AA (2)

A total of 8,215,350 won was remitted (hereinafter referred to as "transfer of this case")

(3).

① In the case of passbooks entered in the passbook prior to deposit of remittance, 'CCC repayment' and 2 above.

"CC 14 year 6-12" and "CC 15 years" in the record of a passbook on a deposit slip for remittance

The transfer of this case is written as "1-8", and the transfer of this case is borrowed from the CCC of KK.

Performance and the payment of CCC’s benefits from June 2014 to August 2015 (e.g., this)

There is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.

(4) The sum of KRW 20,211,761 out of the total amount of KRW 49,755,751 deposited in the account of the above ○○ Bank is KRW 49,75,751, Defendant A

4,788,239 won was transferred to another account by Defendant AA for the △△○ Savings Bank

used in paying the principal and interest of loans, and remaining money excluding 117 won shall be deposited from the date of deposit.

The withdrawal in several cash has been made in one week, but the location of the withdrawal has not been confirmed.

(5) approximately KRW 1.1 million out of the amount of KRW 88,215,350 deposited into the account of the above Seocho Bank: Defendant BB

Use in the settlement of the Internet Goods Price, or transfer to the other account of Defendant BB, approximately KRW 1.6 million

The remainder of the money except the Won was withdrawn in several cash over twenty (20) days from the date of deposit;

The source of use is not identified.

(6) Each of the above accounts under the name of the Defendants is a long-term account that the Defendants used.

(7) On the other hand, CCC’s total amount of KRW 538,059,750 against the Plaintiff, such as as in Appendix 1.

A reasonable amount of tax liability. The notice date and the due date of each of the above tax liability are all different.

(2) In accordance with the above legal principles, we examine the instant case, and each of the facts charged prior to the facts charged.

The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence, i.e., the Defendants’ assertion, as asserted by the Defendants:

Money transferred to the account shall be loaned by CCC from KK and money in the name of the loan and salary that it is required to receive.

That is, this money was deposited into the account used for a long time by the CCC’s wife and the Defendants’ children.

2. The Defendants’ other parts of the money transferred to the Defendants’ account as seen earlier.

(3) The Defendants are required to withdraw cash by CCC.

The necessary account password and seal were required to be issued to CCC;

It is argued that the CCC who withdrawn money through this was using the above money for it, but it is so argued.

Comprehensively taking into account the absence of any evidence, CCC itself

The money to be received from KK Construction shall be donated to the Defendants and without going through them.

It is judged that the transfer was made immediately.

(3) However, while the CCC is in excess of its liabilities, 49,755,751 won against Defendant AA and Defendant BB

8,215,350 won each donation and the condition of the shortage of joint security for creditors, including the plaintiff, etc.

Since CCC and the Defendants caused or deepened the gift contract of this case, the gift contract of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendants harmed the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this case’s gift contract should be revoked.

(4) As to this, the Defendants deposited money in the Defendants’ account through the instant remittance.

However, it is defense to the effect that it was not known that it was a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the fact that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act in the revocation lawsuit for the fraudulent act is not the beneficiary.

The beneficiary bears the burden of proof at the time of the fraudulent act.

In order to recognize the good faith, there must be objective and acceptable evidence and evidence of the debtor.

Only a statement that is merely a unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party's prosecution, at the time of such fraudulent act;

It should not be concluded that a beneficiary was bona fide (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280 Decided July 4, 2006).

(see, 1) The details of transfers, the relationship between the Defendants and CCC, and the latter.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances indicated in the record, such as disbursement details and circumstances, the remittance of this case is made with CCC.

The Defendants should be deemed to have entered into a gift agreement by the Defendants, and thus, the Defendants did not recognize it.

(2) The Defendants’ good faith with respect to fraudulent act may not be deemed to have been established.

Therefore, the defendants' defense is groundless.

(b) Reinstatement;

(1) The subject matter of an act of disposal of property which is a fraudulent act is money or movable and may be returned in kind.

In such cases, the revocation obligee may directly seek the delivery of the subject matter to himself/herself (Supreme Court Decision 8 August 1999).

24. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da23468, 23475.

(2) Accordingly, Defendant AA’s restitution to the Plaintiff, Defendant AA’s KRW 49,755,751, and Defendant BB

8,215,350 won and each of the above amounts shall be governed by the Civil Act from the day following the day this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

The damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants should be accepted (the main claim).

this conclusion does not separately determine whether the preliminary claim is acceptable or not.

Inasmuch as the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be decided as above.