1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed as added by this court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff returned KRW 2,066,40,000 in total for investment or loans 33 times from September 11, 2014 to October 29, 2015, as shown in the attached Table 3, after hearing the Plaintiff’s statement that he/she would pay 20% of the profits when he/she invested in the auction to D, a person who is a fishery product import and wholesale retailer, and transfers KRW 50 million from September 11, 2014 to October 29, 2015.

B. D was prosecuted for committing a crime by deceiving the Plaintiff and deceiving the Plaintiff a total of KRW 2,066,400,000 as above, and became final and conclusive after being sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years and six months in the appellate trial.

(Resan District Court 2016Gohap295, Busan High Court 2017No601). C.

From November 16, 2014, the Defendant reported the marriage on February 24, 2015 among de facto marriage in D and D, and divorced on November 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 9, Eul evidence 12, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a fraudulent act by transferring the pertinent amount of KRW 265 million to the Defendant in excess of debt amount as shown in attached Table 1, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeks payment of KRW 265 million to the Defendant with the revocation of each of the pertinent gift contracts and subsequent restitution.

B. In order for a debtor to have established a donation contract with respect to money remitted to another person’s deposit account, the relevant legal principle as to donation determination should be interpreted as having reached an agreement between the parties on the grant of money transferred to another person with the debtor and another person, first of all, in order to have it reverted to another person ultimately.

In addition, the burden of proving that the above remittance is a fraudulent act that is subject to creditor's right of revocation.