1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, etc. against this Court No. 2016 Ghana475142, and this Court rendered a decision of performance recommendation as stated in the purport of the claim on December 15, 2016, and the said decision became final and conclusive as it is.

B. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant, the wife B, purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet from C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 26, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. On September 17, 2015, the Plaintiff alleged that B, in insolvent condition B, donated real estate purchase funds as indicated in the separate sheet to the Defendant on September 17, 2015, which is the wife, sought revocation of the gift agreement, which is a fraudulent act and compensation for the equivalent value. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that B donated the above real estate purchase funds to the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently

(A) The Plaintiff’s capital flows from December 2, 2015. However, this is far from the point of time of the Defendant’s real estate purchase. From the account under the name of the Defendant to December 2, 2015, KRW 20,000 was withdrawn on December 2, 2015, and KRW 14:14:14,003,835 was transferred to the Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd.’s loan repayment after the deposit of the same amount as 14:09 on the same day. However, it is difficult to avoid the possibility of “the balance of the Nonghyup Bank’s account under the name of the Defendant,” which is confirmed that the source of KRW 20,00,00,000, which the Plaintiff considered as the issue, exceeds the original amount, it cannot be readily concluded that such capital flows are related to the donation of real estate purchase funds.

B. The plaintiff asserts that as long as the defendant acquired real estate listed in the separate sheet in accordance with the contract title trust agreement with B, he/she is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above real estate purchase fund to B. However, he/she seeks payment equivalent to the plaintiff's claim based on the creditor's subrogation right.