1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor who has a claim for attorney’s fees from July 2016 to December 5, 2017 for D’s legal advice and legal representation.

The Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with D, and the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment on June 20, 2018 that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,346,990 and its delay damages,” which became final and conclusive as it is, in the litigation proceedings conducted by the Seoul Central District Court 2017Gahap57410.

B. D and F Co., Ltd. shared 69/100, 31/100 of their respective shares of 13,405 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), respectively, in Busan Northern-gu E Cemetery (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”). However, on January 31, 2017, concluded a donation contract with the Defendant on the instant real estate.

(B) At the time of the conclusion of the instant gift agreement, the instant real estate was established by the mortgagee G-mortgage (the maximum amount of the claim), G-mortgage (the maximum amount of the claim), the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (the maximum amount of the claim amount, KRW 3.2 billion, KRW 2.4 billion, and KRW 1 billion).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. D, in excess of the Plaintiff’s assertion, entered into the instant gift agreement with the Defendant on the share 69/100 of the real estate in this case, and thus, D had the intention of explanation, and D had the intent of explanation, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been a beneficiary, the instant gift agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant must implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed with respect to the share 69/100 of the real estate in this case, to be restored to its original state.

B. The "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation", which is the starting point of the exclusion period under Article 406, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, for the determination of whether the exclusion period exists, is the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements of the creditor's right of revocation.