The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff respectively lent KRW 5,000,000,000 to D Co., Ltd. and KRW 50,000,00 on April 18, 2017.

B. On November 20, 2018, C, a representative director of D, prepared a notarial deed stating that C, at the Plaintiff’s request, will provide a joint and several surety for the above 60,000,000 won loan obligation of D.

C. Meanwhile, on June 8, 2017, C, a spouse, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the gift dated June 7, 2017, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion remitted KRW 60,000,00 to the account under the name of corporation D upon C's request. Since C in excess of his/her obligation bears the above obligation against the plaintiff, the donation of the real estate to the defendant who is his/her spouse to the defendant is an act detrimental to the plaintiff who is the creditor, the plaintiff, and thus, seek cancellation of the above donation contract and compensation for value.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff remitted the money to the account of the corporation Eul, and the loan certificate prepared in relation to the above money lending, the debtor is stated as D in relation to the above money lending, and the security offered in relation to the above money was also a service contract under which D can receive service payment. According to the above facts, the plaintiff lent the money to D from October 10 to April 18, 2017. After the donation contract of the real estate of this case was concluded on November 20, 2018 to be a joint and several surety, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's preservation claim against C exists at the time of June 7, 2017 when the gift contract of this case was made.