1. The gift agreement concluded on October 17, 2016 between the Defendant and B on real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the application for intervention

A. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor has a legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the Ulsan District Court 2017Gahap25068, Ulsan District Court 2017Gahap25068, which was pending in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant gift agreement with the Defendant.

(b) have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding in order to assist one of the parties in the case, on behalf of the parties.

The term "interest" refers to an interest which refers to a legal interest, not a de facto economic or emotional interest but a legal interest. The existence of such an interest means a case in which the judgment is res judicata or executory power of the judgment in question, or the judgment in question does not directly affect the effect of the judgment in question.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2014Ma4009, May 29, 2014). Even if a claim is accepted in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, this is merely a relative effect between the parties to the lawsuit, and the restitution following revocation of a fraudulent act is effective for the benefit of all creditors.

Even if this is a de facto economic interest, and cannot be seen as a legal interest in the outcome of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the application for intervention by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for participation.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff indicated the claim 1) on December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “C”).

Since the loan of KRW 8.92 million to the Corporation, the credit balance of KRW 6,538,912,018 as of the filing date of the lawsuit of this case remains, and C's representative director is the representative director.