1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s obligee of the claim for the acquisition money against Nonparty B (the payment order of KRW 2012 tea 13052, the payment order of KRW 8,514,950, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 45.7% per annum from June 1, 2012 to the full payment order of KRW 4,228,143, and the damages for delay calculated from June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s spouse and the Defendant’s national bank head of the Defendant’s bank bank without any special occupation deposit of KRW 34,317,00 on November 21, 2014, and the deposit of KRW 22,069,100 on November 24, 2014 constitutes a fraudulent act with the intent of undermining the obligee. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each gift contract against the Defendant, while the Defendant sought payment of the amount claimed against the Defendant as compensation for damages against the Defendant.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, the Plaintiff’s claim against B is recognized as having existed as preserved bonds, but only the foreign currency purchase amount of KRW 34,317,000 on November 21, 2014 (the transaction details of the Defendant’s national bank account passbook) and the deposit amount of KRW 22,069,100 on November 24, 2014, each of the above deposited money was owned by B.

It is very insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was donated to B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the existence of the gift contract alleged by the Plaintiff.

In the absence of any evidence to acknowledge the act of disposal of property B subject to creditor revocation, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion without examining the remaining points.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.