1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On May 2, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 75,000,000 to Nonparty C, and set up a collateral security with respect to the Plaintiff, the maximum debt amount of KRW 97,50,000,00 with respect to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “DB 202”) owned by Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.

On March 31, 2009, Non-party B purchased Dora 202 from C, and acquired the above loan obligations against the Plaintiff on April 3, 2009.

B The registration of ownership transfer was made on June 8, 2012 on the ground of the gift agreement (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) signed by June 8, 2012 to the Defendant, who was known on June 11, 2012, on the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground] The Plaintiff asserted that the instant donation contract constituted a fraudulent act and sought revocation and restitution of its original state, by asserting that there was no dispute as to the non-contentious facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The Defendant asserted that the instant donation contract constituted a fraudulent act. On Mar. 15, 2013, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant donation contract was concluded on Nov. 1, 2012, where the voluntary auction procedure had commenced for the overdue payment of interest on the loan No. 202, and the instant lawsuit was filed one year after the lapse of the exclusion period, and that the instant lawsuit was unlawful.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was aware of the conclusion of the instant gift contract at the time the Defendant asserts.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is not accepted.

The conclusion of the instant donation contract with the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the merits constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, it should be revoked, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant should be revoked as stated in the purport of the claim.

Even if the debtor disposes of other properties, the right to collateral security has been established for the creditor with respect to real estate owned by the debtor.