1. The gift contract concluded on August 7, 2017 between the Defendant and B is KRW 10,774,757, which was concluded on August 7, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. A. A credit card user B uses a credit card issued by the Plaintiff and fails to pay the price from February 5, 2017 to April 5, 2018, and thus, the Plaintiff breached the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the principal amounting to KRW 9,007,782, fees and arrears amounting to KRW 1,766,975, and KRW 10,774,757.

B. (1) B, on August 7, 2017, entered into a gift agreement and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the Defendant, who is a child (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”), and completed the registration of the ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

(2) On August 17, 2012, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring community property consisting of KRW 110,500,000 for the real estate indicated in the separate list was completed on August 17, 2012, but was cancelled on November 21, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the Defendant shall restore the contract to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. At the time of the instant donation agreement, the Plaintiff’s claim for the use of credit card against B was established, and thus, the above claim is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole, B’s application for individual rehabilitation on May 25, 2017 seems to have been in excess of the debt, as evidence Nos. 4 and 8 against B’s insolvency (A) is acknowledged.

(B) Although the defendant asserts that the monthly income of B is KRW 3 million, it is not insolvent, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) In the event that the Defendant’s bad faith (A) donated real estate in the separate sheet to the Defendant under excess of the obligation, barring any special circumstance, the act becomes a fraudulent act to the Plaintiff as the obligee, and the intention of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s bad faith are presumed.