1. The gift contract concluded on January 20, 2017 between the defendant and B shall be subject to the limit of KRW 61,00,000,00.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On February 23, 2010, the Plaintiff provided a credit guarantee of KRW 85 million with respect to the loan obtained from the former bank on February 23, 2010, and the former bank loaned KRW 100 million to B on February 24, 2010. (2) On March 29, 2017, the former bank extended a loan of KRW 100,000 to B. Since then, the former bank delayed the repayment of the loan interest accrued to the former bank on May 3, 2017.

Accordingly, on May 19, 2017, the Plaintiff subrogated to the former bank 85,593,835 won, and the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B is KRW 84,756,600 in total as of August 31, 2017 (amounting to KRW 84,709,583 in total as of August 31, 2017).

B. B’s act of disposing of property and financial situation 1) B’s act of disposing of property on January 20, 2017 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is the real estate indicated in the attached Table of KRW 180,000,000, which is the only property value of one’s own,

(1) As to the gift contract with the Defendant, the wife (hereinafter “instant gift contract”).

(2) At the time of the donation contract of this case, B had a total of KRW 41 million on the financial institution and had a joint and several liability of KRW 1.681 million on the C Company and D, which it operated, as well as the joint and several liability of KRW 1.681 million on the D.

C. On January 20, 2017, the Defendant revoked the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, after repaying the repayment of the maximum debt amount of KRW 119 million to the secured debt of the right to collateral security, which was established on the instant real estate, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 14,28 million, and then cancelling the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage.

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 3, Gap’s evidence 4 through 12, Gap’s evidence 16, the court’s order to submit tax information to Seojin-gu Office prior to the previous week, the result of this court’s order to submit financial transaction information to No. 1, the whole purport of pleadings, as a whole.

2. Determination on the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution

(a)be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation on the establishment of the preserved claim;