1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation and restitution of each gift contract to the Defendant stated in the purport of the claim.

On September 1, 2015, the first instance court revoked each contract on the donation of KRW 28 million on September 1, 2015, and each contract on the donation of KRW 100 million on May 16, 2016, and ordered the Defendant to pay for the amount of KRW 128 million and the delayed payment for the restitution to the original state, and ordered the Defendant to dismiss the part on the revocation of the fraudulent act and the claim for restitution of KRW 100 million on September 1, 2015.

In this regard, since only the defendant appealed on the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, this court shall decide only on the part against the defendant.

2. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing a judgment of the first instance is 2-C among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance.

The part on whether a fraudulent act was established (the part on the lower court’s fourth to the lower court’s fifth to the fifth to seventh (the lower court’s fifth) as indicated in the following 3.. The “instant donation contract” in the third part of the seventh part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, except for “the first and second acts” in the first and second acts, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Parts to be dried;

C. (1) Whether a fraudulent act is constituted a party’s assertion either as to B’s act of disposal of the property as seen earlier by the Plaintiff, which was transferred KRW 28 million to the Defendant on September 1, 2015 (hereinafter “instant act of disposal”) and on May 16, 2016, the Defendant transferred the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million to C with the claim of KRW 100 million for the remainder of the purchase and sale against C (hereinafter “second act of disposal”) constitutes a fraudulent act as each gift against the Defendant.

B. On June 15, 2015, the Defendant lent KRW 40 million to B, who is the spouse, to the Defendant, and the first disposition is for the repayment of the borrowed money to the Defendant, and thus does not constitute a fraudulent act.

(2) B-2.