1. The contract of donation concluded on August 2, 2018 between the defendant and D concerning the real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 20 million with interest rate of KRW 19.9% per annum and due date on May 21, 2022 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

D has not paid interest on the instant loans since September 5, 2018.

B. On August 2, 2018, D donated (hereinafter “instant gift”) real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the attached list to the Defendant, who is the spouse, to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant gift”). On August 2, 2018, Suwon District Court: (a) completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) to the Defendant under the receipt of No. 32486 on August 2, 2018.

C. D was insolvent at the time of the instant donation, and even at the time of the closing of argument in the instant case, D had continued to be insolvent.

D and the defendant shared consultations on August 22, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1), since the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan against D, a preserved claim, arose prior to the date of donation alleged that the Plaintiff was a fraudulent act, the obligee’s right of revocation becomes a preserved claim.

D entered into the instant gift contract under insolvent, and even at the time of the closing of argument in the instant case, the insolvent status continued.

The gift of this case is a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the intention of D, who is the debtor, is recognized.

The defendant's bad faith is also presumed to be beneficiary.

B. The defendant asserts that the gift of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, since the real estate of this case was donated as consolation money, child support, and division of property in consultation with D.

The evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. As to the instant real estate in the method of revocation of fraudulent act and restitution to its original state.