1. On January 27, 2016, between the Defendant and C, five million won out of the lease deposit returned by the E Trading Company located in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in a claim for loans of KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s Dong C (hereinafter “the deceased”).

However, on January 27, 2016, the Deceased transferred KRW 5 million (hereinafter “the instant claim”) out of the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of the Jung-gu Daejeon E Trading Company D located in Daejeon (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “E”), which is the only property under insolvent, to the Defendant, who is the deceased’s children, constitutes a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the assignment contract of this case between the deceased and the defendant shall be revoked, and since the claim of this case is repaid and it is impossible to return the original property, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 5 million as compensation for the value.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions, and the overall purport of the arguments, evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 9.8 million to the Deceased on February 23, 2015; and the Deceased transferred KRW 200,000 to the Plaintiff’s wife at intervals of one month from March 24, 2015 to December 16, 2015.

According to the above facts of recognition, the deceased appears to have paid interest on the above money through the plaintiff's wife, and in full view of the above facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff lent to the deceased KRW 10 million (transfer except interest on the deceased).

[The plaintiff denies the authenticity of the deceased’s UA as evidence that the above money was leased to the deceased (No. 1-2) and according to the appraiser F’s unmanned appraisal result, it can be recognized that the UA evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2’s UA’s UA’s UA’s UA’s UA is not the deceased’s identity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the above borrowed money, but the above facts and circumstances alone can also be recognized as the plaintiff’s lending to the deceased. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent 5 million won to the deceased only with the statement No. 4.