1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C, around April 2014, in collusion with D, acquired the Plaintiff KRW 206,240,000 from the Plaintiff on the ground that “The amount of KRW 10 billion is 10 billion upon receipt of a certified letter of credit issued by the U.S. F Bank and discount from the Hong Kong G Bank. When providing USD 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, would be 4 billion, not later than 14 days upon receipt of the money.”

B. Meanwhile, C donated the sum of KRW 81,50,000 to the Defendant, the wife, from May 2, 2014 to May 9 of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C donated KRW 81,50,000 to the Defendant in excess of the obligation. The Defendant, as his wife, was unable to gather the source of the said money, and used the said money to purchase a store deposit and a high-priced confession with the said money, not ordinary living expenses. As such, each of the instant gift contracts ought to be revoked as a fraudulent act, since it ought to be deemed that the obligee would be detrimental to the obligee, and the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 81,50,000 and the delay damages therefrom.

B. In order to constitute a fraudulent act, the obligor’s act of disposing of the property shall cause a decrease in the obligor’s total assets and thus, the obligor’s joint security should not be sufficient. In other words, the obligor’s small assets should be more than active assets. Such an obligor’s insolvency should be determined at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001). The fact-finding conducted by the first instance court against the head of Suwon-si branch office of the first instance court, alone, was in excess of the obligor’s obligation at the time of entering into each gift contract

It is insufficient to view that each gift contract of this case was omitted in excess of liability by concluding each gift contract of this case.