1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff argued that the transfer of KRW 79,976,635, which is a part of the transfer obligation, to the Defendant, is an act of disposal of property actively, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance that deemed the Defendant’s father as the performance of the obligation to support is unreasonable. The Defendant’s father, who is the Defendant’s father, was liable for a considerable amount of debt, the Defendant and B were living together with the Defendant, and the Defendant would not need any separate cost of living, and the Defendant was operating his business in particular with no reason to avoid engaging in the work, and submitted as additional evidence

However, in a case where a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act asserts that the act of paying money to the beneficiary is a gift to constitute a gift, it should be objectively interpreted that the debtor and the beneficiary would have objectively reverted the money so remitted to the beneficiary, and thus, the “donation” would be given free of charge (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da212780, Nov. 27, 2014). The defendant argues that the amount equivalent to KRW 2 million per month of the above remittance amount to the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the evidence Nos. 4, 1, 7, and added the whole purport of the pleading in the statement of the evidence No. 4, 1, 1986, although he was adult at the time of the above remittance, the defendant did not have any property or income at the level of self-reliance.