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

A. On February 18, 2016, Nonparty B (B) and his/her spouse Nonparty D sold KRW 1,950,000,000 to Nonparty F with 1/2 equity interest in each of 8 households of Songpa-gu Multi-household E (201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 401, 402, and 501, hereinafter “instant transferred real estate”). On April 19, 2016, Nonparty D sold the instant transferred real estate at KRW 1,950,000 to Nonparty F.

B. B received KRW 174,221,50 from the F to the G account of our bank on April 28, 2016, and paid KRW 70,000 from the said account to the Defendant on June 15, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant check delivery act”). C.

B filed a return of capital gains tax on June 7, 2016, but did not pay capital gains tax. On October 31, 2016, the head of a sericultural tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office notified B of capital gains tax of KRW 66,339,700 as the due date for payment, and capital gains tax of KRW 66,339,70 as the due date for payment on December 31, 2016.

B did not have any other active property than KRW 70,014,598 in the account of the said bank at the time of the check delivery.

E. B did not pay to the Plaintiff capital gains tax of KRW 154,173,320, including additional dues of KRW 21,493,920, until the time of filing the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the delivery of the check of this case is a gift to the defendant, and at the time, B had already been in excess of the debt, and the delivery of the check of this case has further deepened the debt. The delivery of the check of this case is a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor of B, and thus, it is claimed that the delivery of the check of this case is revoked and its restoration is sought

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant received the payment of the money that the Defendant previously lent to B before, and the Defendant was the good faith.